Auth isn't required in this conversation (pruned below) because it never
even gets as far as "Command received: MAIL FROM"
In the sucess example auth isn't required because mail is to local user.
I don't think James SMTP AUTH is your problem here.
d
26/07/05 11:17:46 INFO smtpserver: Connection
Hello,
I have just configured Horde and IMP with Phoenix 4.0.1 James 2.2.0
I am able to receive mail however sending mail with AUTH enabled gives
the following when I send a message.
Please can someone give me a clue as to where the problem lies to see if
is a php problem or with horde.
Horde
It is already as you say.
In my opinion (as a user setting up my configuration) we should always activate SMTP AUTH and define as authorized an IP
or subnet *only by exception*. And this is how I set up my system, using SMTP AUTH plus one single IP explicitely
authorized, because it runs a poor w
> Would it be better to prompt anyway for SMTP AUTH
> (it is not mandatory, but
> only a capability declaration, as I understand) and
> support further AUTH for
> authorized addresses too?
I was just wondering about it from a security
standpoint. Having an entire subnet/multiple IP
addresses defi
Ok Stefano,
could you please open a Jira issue describing the enhancement requested (just for tracking)? After that I will apply and
commit the changes, unless someone jumps up with some reason against it.
Vincenzo
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I read the RFC and I've not found anything saying there a
I read the RFC and I've not found anything saying there are problems
offering the AUTH keywords in the EHLO response when authentication is not
required.
The "250-AUTH" answers simply says that the server correctly handle a set of
SMTP commands: they doesn't imply that the server really supports u
> Stefano,
>
> if I understand correctly, you want SMTPHandler to *always*
> send AUTH LOGIN, and then behave as always for
> allowing/disallowing relaying.
>
> This way, if the sender MUA (or MTA) authenticates, our James
> server is able to SMIMESign the message because the sender
> user i
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
- I want JAMES to relay mails from my network's private
IP addresses.
Fine. Set that subnet as authorized.
Done
- I want JAMES to relay mails for SMTP authenticated users
from everywhere.
Turn on authorization.
Done
- I also want JAMES to automatically add an S/MIME
> > - I want JAMES to relay mails from my network's private
> > IP addresses.
>
> Fine. Set that subnet as authorized.
Done
> > - I want JAMES to relay mails for SMTP authenticated users
> > from everywhere.
>
> Turn on authorization.
Done
> > - I also want JAMES to automatically add an
> - I want JAMES to relay mails from my network's private
> IP addresses.
Fine. Set that subnet as authorized.
> - I want JAMES to relay mails for SMTP authenticated users
> from everywhere.
Turn on authorization.
> - I also want JAMES to automatically add an S/MIME signature
> for SMTP
> Why? The whole point is to not require it. If we want to
> assert to downstream relays that the user was authenticated,
> we don't need the SMTP AUTH to do so.
Here is my use case:
- I want JAMES to relay mails from my network's private IP addresses.
- I want JAMES to relay mails for SMTP a
> Would it be better to prompt anyway for SMTP AUTH
Why? The whole point is to not require it. If we want to assert to
downstream relays that the user was authenticated, we don't need the SMTP
AUTH to do so.
--- Noel
> > Currently a client from an athorised address is not able to get
> > authenticated: is it correct by RFC?
>
> Should be, yes. The server does not prompt for SMTP AUTH if
> the address is authorized.
Would it be better to prompt anyway for SMTP AUTH (it is not mandatory, but
only a capabilit
> Currently a client from an athorised address is not able to
> get authenticated: is it correct by RFC?
Should be, yes. The server does not prompt for SMTP AUTH if the address is
authorized.
--- Noel
-
To unsubscribe,
> I switched on the SMTP authentication.
> If I set a wrong password on MS-Outlook upon sending an
> email, james complains.
> If I turn off the smtp authentication on MS-Outlook, james
> accepts the outgoing mail.
> It doesn't make much sense ...
> I mean, if james is set to require SMTP authen
> It should insist upon authentication - unless the email is
> addressed to a domain on that server, or the sending machine
> is an authorised address.
Currently a client from an athorised address is not able to get
authenticated: is it correct by RFC?
Stefano
rs
> Subject: authRequired setting
>
>
> Hi all.
> I switched on the SMTP authentication.
> If I set a wrong password on MS-Outlook upon sending an email, james
> complains.
> If I turn off the smtp authentication on MS-Outlook, james accepts the
> outgoing mail.
> It doesn&#
Hi all.
I switched on the SMTP authentication.
If I set a wrong password on MS-Outlook upon sending an email, james
complains.
If I turn off the smtp authentication on MS-Outlook, james accepts the
outgoing mail.
It doesn't make much sense ...
I mean, if james is set to require SMTP authentication
18 matches
Mail list logo
