At 5:16 PM +0000 3/9/06, Hugh Sasse wrote:
> In addition to architectural considerations, you might want to try the
HAPPYMAIL patch I developed to address the problem of changing user
> behavior.
The patch looks useful.
The web page says it uses the [AUTH] response code. A quick glance
at the patch shows it using either a [HAPPYMAIL] response code or no
response code.
Were these choices deliberate?
RFC 2449 and 3206 specify that [AUTH] indicates a problem
specifically with the user's credentials, and thus the client should
prompt for a new password.
The [LOGIN-DELAY] response code is specified to inform the client
that the login interval is too short. So, I'd suggest that the patch
include the [LOGIN-DELAY] response code in its error message instead
of [HAPPYMAIL] (which is non-standard) or no response code.
Also, I think it would be very friendly (and way cool) for the patch
to include the LOGIN-DELAY response to the CAPA command. In
authenticated state it can include the specific login-delay that will
be enforced for the user.
You can also set the LOGIN-DELAY response to CAPA using the
announce-login-delay option.
--
Randall Gellens
Opinions are personal; facts are suspect; I speak for myself only
-------------- Randomly-selected tag: ---------------
Coding is "90% finished" for half of the total coding time. Debugging
is "99% complete" most of the time. --Fred Brooks
