Gilles, I'm actually wondering - should there even be a difference? Every practical implementation of 587 I've ever seen requires auth. Is there any sane reason to have "enable auth" not actually require it? I.E. what I'm asking is is "enable" (without require) simply a silly knob that we're putting in place that nobody should use?
If you're accepting without auth, typically I find that's just done on port 25 - and anywhere I've deployed it that's what we've done. does anyone have a real use of port 587 with auth turned on but not required? On Tue, Oct 9, 2012 at 7:48 AM, Gilles Chehade <gil...@poolp.org> wrote: > On Tue, Oct 09, 2012 at 03:43:03PM +0200, Alexander Hall wrote: >> On 10/09/12 15:33, Gilles Chehade wrote: >> >Argh, you should have talked to me first ... >> > >> >Both require ssl and require auth are implemented already ... I did >> >not commit yet because we stabilized a release and decided to not >> >add new features to it unless they are critical. >> > >> >This feature should be committed in a few days >> >> well well, I got the pleasure of pretending to be a real hacker >> anyway... ;-) >> > > Actually, you're diff has a nice idea regarding the enable|require part > which we'll incorporate in my diff, so you didn't hack for nothing :-) > > -- > Gilles Chehade > > https://www.poolp.org @poolpOrg
