Michael Deutschmann wrote:
RFC 2554, the AUTH extension for ESMTP, provides a little-used
feature of an extra "AUTH=" parameter added to the MAIL FROM
2554bis is in (or recently left) Last Call. I'm not aware of any
differences wrt AUTH= paramter, I think that's related to the SASL
concept "authz". Better check out if those vague assumptions are
related to reality. AUTH= could be also related to the famous
"enforced submission rights" in RFC 4409 6.1,
This feature was intended so that a SMTP client could authenticate
*itself* to another,
I'm not sure if that's the case, AUTH= is a MAIL FROM parameter for
individual messages.
I was thinking we might be able to register TENBOX as a special
pseudo-SASL authentication type.
Sounds a bit like the wild and wonderful SASL EXTERNAL mechanism :-)
there seems to be much less red tape involved in registering an
AUTH keyword than there is in allocating an EHLO keyword.
What's an "AUTH keyword" apart from the known 2554bis usage ? The
"red tape" for say the SUBMITTER keyword and parameter (RFC 4405)
wasn't too bad. In theory you could clone RFC 4405 replacing PRA
by what you need.
Or did you mean the "red tape" for new SASL mechanisms ? I think
that's considerably worse than registering SMTP extensions. BTW,
the SASL folks recently decided to ditch DIGEST-MD5, better ignore
the DIGEST-MD5 reference in 2554bis.
Frank
-------
Sender Policy Framework: http://www.openspf.org/
Archives at http://archives.listbox.com/spf-discuss/current/
To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your
subscription,
please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/?list_id=735