Re: proposal: imap, imap-server, and imap-util

["Abraham Backus" <abraham at backus dot com>]

Yeah, I saw that option too... I don't mind either way that is preferred :)
Maybe there are people on the list (including you) that manage mail servers
or know more about this than me and could suggest one way over another?  I
really only know enough to get it working in my little system.  Even though
I just put a new version out there with two separate packages, I'd prefer
SSLTYPE=unix, which would allow people to use secure imap if they prefer,
yet allow others to run insecure if they want.

I definitely don't have a clue about kerberos...

Thanks for the compliment Eduardo, and I don't think your (or anyone elses)
feedback sounds negative at all.  Any feedback, especially from you (being
the maintainer of pine and from uw) is positive to me :)

----- Original Message ----- 
> What about SSLTYPE=unix, which allows both a) and b) in one binary? (that
> means in IMAP lingo that the "LOGIN" command is always enabled, as opposed
> to a) which only allows this command under ssl or tls, or b) which, well,
> it's just an insecure server)
>
> Also, a thought in the air. I know nothing about kerberos, but that may
> seem like something some people may be interested in having in their mail
> server. Maybe it would be something to think about adding? Just a thought.
>
> (by the way, Abraham, you've done a great job. I apologize if my feedback
> sounds negative, I hope I'm not being an annoying devil's advocate).