Re: [Nmh-workers] What about an nmh-1.6-RC1

[Lyndon Nerenberg]

On Jul 22, 2014, at 5:07 PM, Lyndon Nerenberg <address@hidden> wrote:

> These days I do think it's reasonable to expect openssl to be present.  But 
> not the CMU SASL libraries.  My thought has always been that we should 
> include our own bare-bones SASL implementation, sufficient to allow CRAM-MD5 
> and PLAIN (after a successful TLS negotiation).  This would certainly cover 
> off the vast majority of cases where MH needs to talk to an SMTP or 
> Submission server.  I'm not sure what the state of the art is in POP servers, 
> as I haven't used one in a couple of decades.

To clarify, I'm not suggesting dropping the CMU SASL support.  What I meant to 
say is that we should include a light weight SASL implementation as I described 
that would be built iff CMU SASL support was not enabled in the build.

--lyndon

signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail