Re: IMAPS problems...

[Brian Stafford <brian stafford uklinux net>]

On 2001.08.22 18:10:39 +0100 Carlos Morgado wrote:

> erm duh again. i wrote "imap". i meant "imaps". i must get more sleep :\
> anyway for "imap" you are totally correct

I know the feeling - I stopped programming last night when I couldn't spell my
own name any more.

> > However I figure the correct strategy if the user wants a secure connection
> > is to first try the standard port and see if STARTTLS is offered.  If not
> > try the "secure" port.  I feel that this strategy should be automatic and
> > not
> > a user option.  If clicking on an imaps: url, we know in advance that the
> > secure port is to be used, so go straight to that using SSL/TLS
> > 
> ok, that makes sense.
> see if STARTTLS is available, if not try imaps on standard port (is there a 
> good reason to let the user specify the port here ?).

Hmmm... good point.  I guess there has to be *some* way to specify the ports.
I suppose for a given IMAP server, you need a hostname/port/secure port triplet.

> if none are available and always is selected crap out.

Yep

> > > and then i have to read about SASL and session encription with SASL. sigh.
> > 
> > And again a properly inplemented client will not negotiate encryption in the
> > SASL exchange if SSL/TLS is already in use. ;)
> > 
> 
> hummmm
> 
> Use Secure IMAP:
> [ ] Always 
> [ ] When available, best method
> [ ] Never

Seems clear enough to me.  Which reminds me, I must add this selection to the
SMTP server config in Balsa ... sigh there aren't enough hours in the day.

Brian