From kmail-devel Sun Oct 31 18:35:15 2004 From: Kevin Date: Sun, 31 Oct 2004 18:35:15 +0000 To: kmail-devel Subject: [Bug 26729] kerberos authentication wanted in kmail Message-Id: <20041031183515.27817.qmail () ktown ! kde ! org> X-MARC-Message: https://marc.info/?l=kmail-devel&m=109924773628854 ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee. http://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=26729 ------- Additional Comments From quanta gnosys biz 2004-10-31 19:35 ------- I'm not sure I understand what you mean by this, Tom, but I can't see how adding support for GSSAPI in a minor release of kmail could possibly have a negative impact on other users. I mean, I'm talking about adding support for one more authentication method (GSSAPI) on top of the ones already present (Clear text, LOGIN, PLAIN, CRAM-MD5, DIGEST-MD5, Anonymous). How would adding one more authentication method negatively impact anyone using any of the others? I have a working Kerberos Realm and I've been using both the library and saslauthd from the cyrus-sasl package with Kerberos cyrus-imapd for more than a year and there is no requirement that I know of (unless specifically configured in the server) to require authentication in sending mail. One can certainly make that a requirement (and I think it's wise to do so) by configuring the server, but I don't see how that relates to adding support for GSSAPI in a mail client like kmail. What am I missing? Just curious. Perhaps the GSSAPI code is not yet stable enough (I can see that being a reason not to include it with 3.3.1), but I can't come up with any other reasons why... Anyway, thanks for your comment. _______________________________________________ KMail developers mailing list KMail-devel@kde.org https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kmail-devel