On Mon, 2009-02-23 at 09:50 -0500, Charles Marcus wrote: > On 2/23/2009 9:21 AM, Timo Sirainen wrote: > > On Sun, 2009-02-22 at 23:58 -0800, Linux Advocate wrote: > >> 2. What is the benefit of using Dovecot's SASL as compared to Cyrus SASL? > >> Is there better performance? > > > > Probably not, but I've always hated configuring Cyrus SASL. It's not as > > flexible and the error and debug messages are worse. > > I agree... but the one disadvantage to dovecot sasl is it cannot be used > as CLIENT mechanism... is adding this capability by any chance on the radar?
Well, as a client Cyrus SASL does pretty well already. And having Dovecot support also client SASL would require a lot of new code which isn't used by Dovecot itself anywhere.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
