On Jul 22, 2014, at 5:07 PM, Lyndon Nerenberg <lyndon(_at_)orthanc(_dot_)ca> wrote:
These days I do think it's reasonable to expect openssl to be present. But not the CMU SASL libraries. My thought has always been that we should include our own bare-bones SASL implementation, sufficient to allow CRAM-MD5 and PLAIN (after a successful TLS negotiation). This would certainly cover off the vast majority of cases where MH needs to talk to an SMTP or Submission server. I'm not sure what the state of the art is in POP servers, as I haven't used one in a couple of decades.
To clarify, I'm not suggesting dropping the CMU SASL support. What I meant to say is that we should include a light weight SASL implementation as I described that would be built iff CMU SASL support was not enabled in the build. --lyndon
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
_______________________________________________ Nmh-workers mailing list Nmh-workers(_at_)nongnu(_dot_)org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/nmh-workers