On Tue, Feb 09, 2010 at 07:37:44PM +0100, Erik Faye-Lund wrote: > > Did you mean "SASL-support that is needed for CRAM-MD5"? The SASL needed > > for that is pretty simple. Hitoshi's patch 3/4 does all of that already > > in less than 100 lines. Using a "real" sasl library might get us more > > authentication methods than CRAM-MD5, but I don't know that anyone > > necessarily cares about them. > > No, that's not what I meant. I agree that CRAM-MD5 should be > sufficient, but to be honest I'd already thought that once you have an > SSL connection, plaintext would also be sufficient. So I'm thinking of > this addition as a "hmpf, some server requires stuff that is really > over the top - perhaps we'll have this problem later with other > servers, and we'd be better off just using some well-tested > implementation". But that's kinda philosophical. Ah, I see. Yes, it's possible that we may want to support other authentication methods later. In my experience, CRAM-MD5 is the only common non-plain IMAP mechanism used by IMAP, but I admit it has been quite a number of years since I actively paid attention to such things. I'd leave that choice to whoever feels like implementing it. :) -Peff -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html