[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       kmail-devel
Subject:    [Bug 26729] kerberos authentication wanted in kmail
From:       Kevin <quanta () gnosys ! biz>
Date:       2004-10-31 18:35:15
Message-ID: 20041031183515.27817.qmail () ktown ! kde ! org
[Download RAW message or body]

------- 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


[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]