[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: UPN + GROUP + UPNEXPAND question.

At 06:59 PM 3/9/2000 -0800, Doug Royer wrote: 
The reason that I think that, is that
may MTA's do not allow VRFY or EXPN, they return unimplemented.
I would suspect the same for UPNEXPAND. Many will NOT want
to give out membership lists to spammers. And I do not see
any benifit for UPNEXPAND - other than debugging. And
it would not be used from a CUA, or at least it would not
be reliable from a CUA as it can be turned off at the CS.

SMTP is unauthenticated, CAP is not. A CS could have authorizations that determine which users are allowed to use UPNEXPAND.

It becomes more important when we consider the CS to CS usage of CAP. In this case the CSs might not share a common group definition. The UPNs that represent groups must be expanded prior to moving the data across a security context boundary so that a consistent evaluation can take place.

Paul