After an evaluation, GNOME has moved from Bugzilla to GitLab. Learn more about GitLab.
No new issues can be reported in GNOME Bugzilla anymore.
To report an issue in a GNOME project, go to GNOME GitLab.
Do not go to GNOME Gitlab for: Bluefish, Doxygen, GnuCash, GStreamer, java-gnome, LDTP, NetworkManager, Tomboy.
Bug 214295 - Need "Secure Password Authentication" as in Microsoft Outlook Express
Need "Secure Password Authentication" as in Microsoft Outlook Express
Status: RESOLVED DUPLICATE of bug 201144
Product: evolution
Classification: Applications
Component: Mailer
unspecified
Other All
: Normal enhancement
: Future
Assigned To: Dan Winship
Evolution QA team
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
 
Reported: 2001-11-01 22:02 UTC by ereiss
Modified: 2001-11-28 22:45 UTC
See Also:
GNOME target: ---
GNOME version: Unversioned Enhancement


Description ereiss 2001-11-01 22:03:10 UTC 
Package: Evolution
Priority: Wishlist
Version: 0.16
Synopsis: Need "Secure Password Authentication" as in Microsoft Outlook Express
Bugzilla-Product: Evolution
Bugzilla-Component: Mailer

Description:
I cannot sign on to my University of Pheonix Online account without this
feature. I cannot convert to Linux because of this.

None of the security protocols supplied with Evolution allow me to
connect.



Unknown reporter: ereiss@sricboces.org, changed to bugbuddy-import@ximian.com.
Comment 1 Luis Villa 2001-11-02 02:28:43 UTC 
It's highly unlikely we'll ever support this (it's a proprietary MS
protocol) but I'll leave it as wishlist.
Comment 2 Dan Winship 2001-11-02 04:39:53 UTC 
I'm pretty sure this is a dup of 1144, in which case we probably
will have it for 1.1 actually. Assigning this to myself so I
remember to figure out whether it really is a dup or not.
Comment 3 Jeffrey Stedfast 2001-11-02 18:25:56 UTC 
what sasl auth mechanism is Secure Password Authentication? Is this
NTLM?
Comment 4 Dan Winship 2001-11-02 19:22:31 UTC 
I'm assuming it's NTLM, yes, but it may be something completely
random (and not even SASL)
Comment 5 Jeffrey Stedfast 2001-11-20 19:06:33 UTC 
feature = future
Comment 6 Dan Winship 2001-11-28 22:45:49 UTC 
Finally got around to checking. Yes, this is 1144.

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 201144 ***