This one time, at band camp, Carlos Sousa said: > > You misunderstand (or I didn't bother to explain clearly) - I wasn't > > answering the OP with a suggestion of how to go about his problem, I > > was answering someone else's question about how SMTP AUTH was possible > > if you don't send a password, but do for POP. > > Yes, you were answering me (among others?), you were very clear, and I'm > sure I understood you. You actually did what I should have done, which > was research on the topic and a concise posting of the findings, and > helped enlarge my personal knowledge on these matters. For that I am > thankful. > > I just reacted, not to you, but to the concept of authenticating smtp > connections by watching unrelated network traffic. > > Hope that's cleared up :) No harm no foul (^: Yes it is a bit of an ugly hack, but I suppose it's good for ISP's and such that want to use authentication without having to do a lot of tech support. -- -------------------------------------------------------------------------- | Stephen Gran | I was playing poker the other night... | | steve@lobefin.net | with Tarot cards. I got a full house | | http://www.lobefin.net/~steve | and 4 people died. -- Steven Wright | --------------------------------------------------------------------------
Attachment:
pgpPnGcXSMObQ.pgp
Description: PGP signature