Twail
Mon Jan 24 20:31:45 CST 2005
Let's see what Barry Wainwright <barry@mvps.org.INVALID> has up their
dress.
>On 24/1/05 6:37 am, in article cq49v0p0nduqaqamgdcgh5uvaivpi2bfl3@4ax.com,
>"Twail.L" <twl@twl.tg> wrote:
>
>> If I had a dollar for every Linux box, incorrectly set-up as a mail server,
>> that has been in my experience to encounter, I would have made my own
>> modest bid for the entire RedHat Company by now. However, the following
>> just takes the cake, both soundly and comprehensively, and is testament
>> again to the way these MVP people think. Useless...
>>
>> IN REGARDS TO: "Authenticated SMTP"
>> "If your ISP has failed to set up their system properly, it may be that you
>> are not "logged in" to their server unless you Receive Mail. If you find
>> that you can receive mail, and anything you send immediately afterwards
>> does go, while anything you attempt to send half an hour later doesn't,
>> your ISP may be one of those."
>>
>>
http://www.entourage.mvps.org/troubleshoot/send_receive/sending_problems.html
>>
>> *** Note the complete lack of accountability; "If your ISP has failed to
>> set up their system properly"
>>
>> ...It's actually called "POP before SMTP", and, notwithstanding it's
>>
>> "work-around" type status, it is still accepted as being a viable paradigm
>> for "Authenticated SMTP" type sending. FACT.
>>
>> Other Mail clients known to work with qmail's "Authenticated SMTP"
>> feature.; Outlook, Outlook Express, Agent, Eudora, Apple Mail &
>> "/usr/bin/mail + shell script".
>>
>> Entourage2004 - bzzzzt!
>>
>> The MVP's have to denounce it as being an ISP error because they don't have
>> an explanation for Entourage not supporting proper "Authenticated SMTP"
>> properly.
>>
>>
>
>Well, as an MVP I'm sure you won't be surprised if I object to your tone.
Knock yourself out.
>However, with regard to 'POP Before SMTP', it is an old system that tried to
>prevent mail relaying, but is not what most people would consider as
>'authenticated SMTP' nowadays.
No, not necessarily normal, but it's still considered valid and applicable
in certain situations. If it provides any kind of authentication
whatsoever, then it has *some* advantage over straight SMTP sending.
Even out of context, ANY authentication is better than NO authentication.
Now, given that these penultimate comments are out of context in contrast
to the prevalence of "POP before SMTP", they are consistent with the
previous appraisal of this system itself. The specific issue was more to do
with how the system in question was represented on the original website
that was referenced in the first post on this thread.
>The system has fallen in disrepute and has declined in usage due to several
>inherent problems with it, and the ready availability of many simpler, more
>secure and less vulnerable systems (like 'real' authenticated SMTP).
"several inherent problems" have catalyzed the shift towards more secure
and less vulnerable systems.
Yes, well; "several inherent problems".
http://www.entourage.mvps.org/troubleshoot/crashes.html
>The main inherent weaknesses in POP Before SMTP are that:
[...] Snip superfluous appraisal of "POP before SMTP"
>In actual fact, it is a relatively trivial exercise to set up entourage to
>be fully compatible with POP Before SMTP using either applescripts or
>schedules.
Which, then of course begs the question:
Q. Apart from "Authenticated SMTP" not being correctly implemented in
Entourage, why in the hell would one need to do this?
> Perhaps the web page could be updated to include this wider
>information, but the whole site is the virtually un-aided work of one
>individual, and is intended to be a non-technical introduction and
>assistance to the average user. Someone who understands the intricacies of
>POP Before SMTP hardly falls into the target audience for the site.
She should then take the big step and create a managerial type structure,
then delegate what tasks are unserviceable due to being so inundated with
other stuff.
>Also, you approach to post an inflammatory,
[...]
I didn't mean to hurt any ones feelings.
In order to stay within the context of the original post, do you have any
comments on the incorrect implementation of "Authenticated SMTP" in
Entourage 2004? Reference material is provided below.
>> Other Mail clients known to work with qmail's "Authenticated SMTP"
>> feature.; Outlook, Outlook Express, Agent, Eudora, Apple Mail &
>> "/usr/bin/mail + shell script".
>I have also removed the totally unnecessary cross-post to the windows XP
>newsgroup. What on earth sort of relevance has this post to that group?
Restored, because there's an abundance of expert knowledge in this group,
of which you and others would most likely benefit.