Hello René, Thanks for raising the topic here.
Le 05/05/2021 à 16:31, Rene Cordier a écrit : > Hello guys, > > [...] > > 1. If authRequired is set to false, we should reject verifyIdenty=true, > as it makes no logical sense. People might need to update their James > running installation though (but easy) > By far my prefered option. Yes some people need to reconfigure smtpserver.xml but at least we don't take implicit decisions. > 2. If authRequired is set to false, we can silently ignore > verifyIdentity is set to true. The option that I like the least... It IMO gives a false sense of safety (you might believe senders are verified but they actually are not). > 3. We keep this current behavior, but need to change the documentation > accordingly and add a warning log as well during James startup. This look fine to me. Verifying senders implies forcing local users to authenticate (overwise the work-around is too simple...). However from an admin perspective it would be harder to diagnose some SMTP transaction being rejected compared to a server not starting. > I personally prefer the first one, as this is the way it's documented > for now and I found it more logical. However, it's completely opened to > discussion (thus the mail). > > Depending on the feedback, will create the according JIRA fix ticket. I think we can reuse JAMES-3525 as it is closely related... Cheers, Benoit > > Thank you all, have a good day! > > Rene. > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: server-dev-unsubscr...@james.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: server-dev-h...@james.apache.org > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: server-dev-unsubscr...@james.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: server-dev-h...@james.apache.org
