= Сообщение: 5149 из 7124 ====================================== FTSC_PUBLIC = От : Joachim Probst 2:240/6309 07 Mar 20 11:19:12 Кому : Ozz Nixon 07 Mar 20 11:19:12 Тема : OPT MPWD interpretation... FGHI : area://FTSC_PUBLIC?msgid=2:240/6309+5e637740 На : area://FTSC_PUBLIC?msgid=1:1/123.0+5E62D056 = Кодировка сообщения определена как: LATIN1 ================================= ============================================================================== Hello Ozz!
06 Mar 20 22:42, you wrote to all:
ON> Okay, while working with another BinkP mailer developer ~ we had ON> different opinions of the wording and functionality of MPWD support.
ON> If I have presented (as the answering system) Zone1 Zone99, Zone103 ON> And the originator presented Zone1 Zone103 Zone200
ON> Any we have passwords that are different for 1 and 103 - as we are ON> each others uplink.
ON> MPWD in my understanding would be expenting the passwords presented in ON> the order the answering system 1, 99, 103 ON> So I would be expecting to receive MsgHdr Len M_PWD pwd1 - pwd2 ON> In his mind, it is the originators order, pwd1 pwd2 -
ON> I know most people just match their passwords, but, a couple ON> situations, the password was out of my control ... and I would like to ON> implement M_PWD support ... (this may be a BinkD question in some ON> heads, but, it goes wider to other mailers)... so I ask here.
Here I am completly with you, not with the way to do it, but that we have a valid point one should takle. The problem I see with the one password is: how to deal with the password matching not all but only a few akas correctly. Ignoring the session? Ignoring the akas not fitting to the password? The FTS is only working on with a correctly password protected session or not. What's with 'partly' password protected sessions?
So I really like the idea of having an authentication per aka.
But when extending the protocol on this point I would recomend doing it in a better downward compatible way.
What about introducing a new keyword, either as M_OPT MPWD <aka> <password/CRAM> or as M_MPWD <aka> <password>? The old M_PWD would still be used as with no password.
This would make a matching of password to aka fairly easy and a system could easily support old and new style in paralell, like if there is no new password line, I take a look in the old style protocol and if I see the new line I just ignore the old style password.
I would think this way would make it much clearer for interpretation.
