[2000] in Kerberos_V5_Development
Re: [Doug Engert ] Eudora ddl's and Kerb 5 (b7)
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Theodore Y. Ts'o)
Fri Nov 22 13:46:26 1996
Date: Fri, 22 Nov 1996 13:41:20 -0500
From: "Theodore Y. Ts'o" <tytso@MIT.EDU>
To: Sam Hartman <hartmans@MIT.EDU>
Cc: krbdev@MIT.EDU, Doug Engert <DEEngert@anl.gov>
In-Reply-To: Sam Hartman's message of 22 Nov 1996 08:09:46 -0500,
<tslu3qi6ztx.fsf@tertius.mit.edu>
From: Sam Hartman <hartmans@MIT.EDU>
Date: 22 Nov 1996 08:09:46 -0500
We might want to try and find out what Qualcomm is doing; it
would be silly to remove popper and movemail just as a major vendor
complicates our plans to avoid having to deal with broken krb5
poppers.
I just finished talking with John Norenberg (product manager of
Eudora-Pro at Qualcomm), and as far as he knows Eudora supports V4 KPOP
only. He's going to double check with his engineers (in case they added
something while he wasn't looking :-), but for right now it doesn't look
we have a problem.
I think we're both in agreement that as far as we know, very few people
are actually using V5 KPOP, and that using RFC1731/RFC134 to do IMAP and
POP3 authentication is the right way to go.
Even if it turns out that there is a major base of Eurdora customers
that are actually using V5 KPOP (which doesn't appear to be the case), I
still don't believe we should put popper and movemail back into the
distribution. Instead, we might put out a separate release that just
had the old KPOP servers --- or better yet, we find someone else willing
to maintain that release.
I'd just as soon let KPOP die and be replaced with a GSSAPI/POP or
GSSAPI/IMAP solution, though, so I don't think we ought to do anything
unless there is a major outcry (which I somehow doubt).
- Ted
