Skip to content

Alternative to cram-md5 #33

Closed
Closed
Alternative to cram-md5#33

Description

@Alternativend
Alternativend
opened on Nov 5, 2015

Hello,

im not an expert on this, but the IPFire project recently integrated your mailagent for notification purposes.

Unfortunately some providers (including mine) didn´t support the cram-md5 login mechanism.

Do you see a chance to offer alternative login methods, so we can use them?

Thanks in advacne!

Activity

  1. corecode commented on Nov 5, 2015

    @corecode
    corecode
    on Nov 5, 2015
    Owner

    Do you know which login methods are required? You can also provide the host name for me to check by myself.

  2. Alternativend commented on Nov 9, 2015

    @Alternativend
    Alternativend
    on Nov 9, 2015
    Author

    My hosting company is schokokeks.org, they told me that they only support PLAIN and LOGIN.

  3. corecode commented on Nov 9, 2015

    @corecode
    corecode
    on Nov 9, 2015
    Owner

    LOGIN is supported. I'll need more details to see why the mail delivery does not work. Could you please supply a log?

  4. mtremer commented on Nov 9, 2015

    @mtremer
    mtremer
    on Nov 9, 2015
    Contributor

    I can confirm that dma that is shipped in IPFire is working well with LOGIN.

    However there is still the error message that is discussed in #15.

  5. Alternativend commented on Nov 10, 2015

    @Alternativend
    Alternativend
    on Nov 10, 2015
    Author

    I don´t know if you still need the logs, because it seems that Michael is working on a patch, but anyway:

    Oct 29 14:09:42 ipfire dma[580015.9cec120]: using smarthost (missen.de:587) Oct 29 14:09:42 ipfire dma[580015.9cec120]: trying remote delivery to missen.de [2a01:4f8:121:1ffe:1:1311:0:7cf] pref 0 Oct 29 14:09:42 ipfire dma[580015.9cec120]: connect to missen.de [2a01:4f8:121:1ffe:1:1311:0:7cf] failed: Network is unreachable Oct 29 14:09:42 ipfire dma[580015.9cec120]: trying remote delivery to missen.de [178.63.68.96] pref 0 Oct 29 14:09:42 ipfire dma[580015.9cec120]: SSL initialization successful Oct 29 14:09:42 ipfire dma[580015.9cec120]: using SMTP authentication for user -backup@missen.de Oct 29 14:09:43 ipfire dma[580015.9cec120]: remote delivery deferred: AUTH cram-md5 failed: 535 Authentication failed. Oct 29 14:09:43 ipfire dma[580015.9cec120]: SMTP login not available. Trying without. Oct 29 14:09:43 ipfire dma[580015.9cec120]: remote delivery to missen.de [178.63.68.96] failed after MAIL FROM: 535 Authentication required. Oct 29 14:09:43 ipfire dma[580015.9cec120]: can not bounce a bounce message, discarding

  6. mtremer commented on Nov 10, 2015

    @mtremer
    mtremer
    on Nov 10, 2015
    Contributor

    Looks like this mail server does not support LOGIN to me or responds with something that DMA is not expecting.

  7. corecode commented on Nov 11, 2015

    @corecode
    corecode
    on Nov 11, 2015
    Owner

    Extracted example handshake:

    220 zucker.schokokeks.org ESMTP
EHLO test.0x2c.org
250-zucker.schokokeks.org Ok.
250-STARTTLS
250-XCOURIEREXTENSIONS
250-XVERP=Courier
250-XEXDATA
250-XSECURITY=NONE,STARTTLS
250-PIPELINING
250-8BITMIME
250-SIZE
250 DSN
STARTTLS^M
220 Ok
<TLS handshake>
EHLO test.0x2c.org
250-zucker.schokokeks.org Ok.
250-AUTH PLAIN LOGIN
250-XCOURIEREXTENSIONS
250-XVERP=Courier
250-XEXDATA
250-XSECURITY=NONE,STARTTLS
250-PIPELINING
250-8BITMIME
250-SIZE
250 DSN

  8. Alternativend commented on Nov 18, 2015

    @Alternativend
    Alternativend
    on Nov 18, 2015
    Author

    So where does this lead us?

  9. mtremer commented on Nov 18, 2015

    @mtremer
    mtremer
    on Nov 18, 2015
    Contributor

    Did you try to perform the LOGIN manually? Is this 100% sure that the server is handling that correctly?

  10. corecode commented on Nov 18, 2015

    @corecode
    corecode
    on Nov 18, 2015
    Owner

    did you try with the patch from #34?

  11. Alternativend commented on Nov 23, 2015

    @Alternativend
    Alternativend
    on Nov 23, 2015
    Author

    @mtremer
    Could you update it in the IPFire branch, so i can test it with the patch included?

  12. mtremer commented on Nov 23, 2015

    @mtremer
    mtremer
    on Nov 23, 2015
    Contributor

    After I got a peer-review which says that the patch is okay, then yes...

  13. corecode commented on Nov 23, 2015

    @corecode
    corecode
    on Nov 23, 2015
    Owner

    That makes this a chicken and egg problem.

  14. mtremer commented on Nov 23, 2015

    @mtremer
    mtremer
    on Nov 23, 2015
    Contributor

    Does it? I don't think so.

    Would you merge this patch as it is if someone else confirms that it is working?

  15. Alternativend commented on Dec 8, 2015

    @Alternativend
    Alternativend
    on Dec 8, 2015
    Author

    So any progress on this? If you can tell me how to test the patch on my IPFire i will do what i can.

    So please let get this thing fixed!

  16. mtremer commented on Dec 10, 2015

    @mtremer
    mtremer
    on Dec 10, 2015
    Contributor

    I have imported this patch to our development build branch: http://git.ipfire.org/?p=ipfire-2.x.git;a=commitdiff;h=b1372c3befd4ba4541fad1a90200ae7c1628ff00

    So it will appear in this night's nightly build. I believe that this is still completely untested and I have also not received a lot from upstream if this patch will ever be merged. So please send feedback, otherwise I will revert this change soon.

  17. Alternativend commented on Dec 14, 2015

    @Alternativend
    Alternativend
    on Dec 14, 2015
    Author

    Im at the dev-branch with two machines, but i can´t see any updates for dma. What am im doing wrong?

  18. mtremer commented on Dec 15, 2015

    @mtremer
    mtremer
    on Dec 15, 2015
    Contributor

    You will need to download the ISO image and install the system from that.

    http://nightly.ipfire.org/next/latest/

  19. mtremer commented on Dec 15, 2015

    @mtremer
    mtremer
    on Dec 15, 2015
    Contributor

    Matthias has compiled this for you: http://forum.ipfire.org/viewtopic.php?f=50&t=15009#p92764

  20. kgaughan commented on Mar 21, 2018

    @kgaughan
    kgaughan
    on Mar 21, 2018

    Given #34 has been merged, I'd say this issue can be closed.

  21. corecode commented on Mar 21, 2018

    @corecode
    corecode
    on Mar 21, 2018
    Owner

    thanks!

  22. corecode
    closed this as completedon Mar 21, 2018
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Metadata

Metadata

Assignees

No one assigned

    Labels

    No labels
    No labels

    Projects

    No projects

      Milestone

      No milestone

      Relationships

      None yet

      Development

      No branches or pull requests

      Issue actions