From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Message-ID: <1a579fc66314c00596b0b6f99acf5fc8@quanstro.net>
From: erik quanstrom <quanstro@quanstro.net>
Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2007 18:16:06 -0500
To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
Subject: Re: [9fans] upas/smtpd password authentication
In-Reply-To: <20071216180213.32FA61E8C5C@holo.morphisms.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 1a9ebc9a-ead3-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

> > even over tls, it seems inconvinent to use two different passwords
> > (really the password and secret) for sending and downloading email.
> 
> it's certainly a bug if imap or smtpd or anything else expects
> a password that is not the inferno/pop secret.
> 
> however, sending that password in plain text is no more
> secure than sending the plan 9 password in plain text.
> either way you should be using tls and not accept *any*
> passwords sent over an unencrypted connection.

i agree ... in general.  but the problem we're trying to solve is
to stop spam relay and to make a reasonable effort to insure
it's difficult to mess with someone's mail via imap.
(email is not secret anyway, since it is almost always sent
offsite and often archived in unexpected places.)

tls seems like something extra to break.  i have several
dozen mac/windows users that need detailed instructions
for every change.

i'm not a security expert.  what case that i can't currently see
would tls solve for me that's worth the extra configuration.
what am i missing?

- erik