[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Squirrelmail:115 Can't Open SMTP Stream.



The Thursday 17 July 2008 23:21:03 Semih Gokalp, you wrote :
> Thanks for reply.
>
> I don't know how (and if) SquirrelMail can be configured to use STARTTLS.
> It
>
> > is possible, however, to configure exim to listen on another port using
> > the TLS-on-connect convention.
>
> Secure SMTP servers use tcp 465 port by TLS default.Source address:
> http://www.squirrelmail.org/docs/admin/admin-5.html#ss5.5
> i tried but did not work.
>
> However, if SquirrelMail and exim are on the same host, connecting via the
>
> > loopback interface (which seems to be case, since you specified
> > 127.0.0.1as the SMTP host), you should not need to worry that the
> > connections are encrypted.
>
> Yes,Squirrelmail and Postfix are on the same host.Yes,I know if i connect
> to localhost,I dont need TLS but some clients are using Thunderbird so I
> can not disable TLS support from Postfix main.cf
>
>
> In addition to I disabled TLS and I configured on either CRAM-MD5* and
> DIGEST-MD5* authentication and worked without any problem on squirrelmail.
> But this time,only (!) DIGEST-MD5 did not work on Thunderbird.CRAM-MD5
> worked on Thunderbird.
> If i use DIGEST-MD5 mechanism,Thunderbird print error "Your Server doesnt
> support security authentication...."
> Interesting !! I can use DIGEST-MD5 mechanism and login IMAP and SMTP
> server with Evolution without problem.
>
> This is Thunderbird bug ? or  DIGEST-MD5 mechanism could not been sensed by
> Thunderbird ? anybody have an idea(s) ?
>
> * I read and benefit from
> http://wiki.dovecot.org/Authentication/PasswordSchemes and
> http://wiki.dovecot.org/Authentication/Mechanisms sources web address.
>
>
>
> Iyi calismalar.Basarilar...
> Semih Gokalp
> Istanbul/Turkiye


I had the same problem a month before and during my search I found pages 
mentioning thunderbird doesn't support DIGEST-MD5.


-- 
Thomas Preud'homme

Why debian : http://www.debian.org/intro/why_debian


Reply to: