and yet another one
10701 S Eastern Ave #1117
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
From: email@example.com [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
Sent: Monday, April 01, 2002 1:43 PM
To: Michael Sweet
Cc: email@example.com; McDonald, Ira; 'Carl'; firstname.lastname@example.org
Subject: Re: IPP> RE: Mandatory Delivery Method for Notifications -
Commen ts by April 15
> email@example.com wrote:
> > ...
> > And authentication in email is done with SASL. S/MIME and PGP don't even
> > into it, and TLS doesn't have to. I would therefore suggest making SASL
> > a MUST with DIGEST-MD5 the mandatory to implement mechanism. You'll need
> > to be able to configure the printer to support the necessary
> > ...
> Except that a lot of companies *don't* (and sometimes can't) use SASL
> with their mail servers, and SASL only works with SMTP (email often
> goes through a number of other transports, e.g. local delivery...)
First of all, you are confusing mandatory to implement with mandatory to
We are only concerned with the former, not the latter.
Second, the direction things have been going has been to use SMTP as an
intermediary even for posting messages locally. (Delivery isn't relevant to
problem at hand.) And while I can see a desire to be able to implement IPP
queuing service, even in this context an implementation would be well
to have both SMTP and SASL capabilities available.
Third, even if you are justified in considering an implementation that
only implements local posting without SMTP as legitimate, it really
doesn't fall within the IETF's purview to standardize such things.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Apr 09 2002 - 22:43:18 EDT