Okay, while working with another BinkP mailer developer ~ we had
different opinions of the wording and functionality of MPWD support.

If I have presented (as the answering system) Zone1 Zone99, Zone103
And the originator presented Zone1 Zone103 Zone200

Any we have passwords that are different for 1 and 103 - as we are each
others uplink.

MPWD in my understanding would be expenting the passwords presented in
the order the answering system 1, 99, 103
So I would be expecting to receive MsgHdr Len M_PWD pwd1 - pwd2
In his mind, it is the originators order, pwd1 pwd2 -

I know most people just match their passwords, but, a couple
situations, the password was out of my control ... and I would like to implement M_PWD support ... (this may be a BinkD question in some
heads, but, it goes wider to other mailers)... so I ask here.

Thank you,
Ozz
--- Legacy/X FTN Tosser/JAM v1-Alpha6
* Origin: Legacy/X WHQ (Legacy ANSI at Today's Speed) (1:1/123)

Hello Ozz!

06 Mar 20 22:42, you wrote to all:

Okay, while working with another BinkP mailer developer ~ we had
different opinions of the wording and functionality of MPWD support.

If I have presented (as the answering system) Zone1 Zone99, Zone103
And the originator presented Zone1 Zone103 Zone200

Any we have passwords that are different for 1 and 103 - as we are
each others uplink.

MPWD in my understanding would be expenting the passwords presented in
the order the answering system 1, 99, 103
So I would be expecting to receive MsgHdr Len M_PWD pwd1 - pwd2
In his mind, it is the originators order, pwd1 pwd2 -

I know most people just match their passwords, but, a couple
situations, the password was out of my control ... and I would like to implement M_PWD support ... (this may be a BinkD question in some
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.

Thank you,
Ozz

Joachim


--- GoldED+/LNX 1.1.5--b20170303
* Origin: ----> FidoPI (2:240/6309)