Re: Fwd: "POP3 SASL Authentication Mechanism" submitted for publication

Abhijit Menon-Sen <[email protected]> writes:

>> A mandatory CRAM-MD5 as recommended in BCP 46 could make sense
>
> This draft (and rfc2554bis, which Alexey is editing) were both changed
> to use DIGEST-MD5 based on concerns about security. That's the way it
> was when I started editing it, so I'll change it only if there's clear
> consensus about the preferred replacement.
>
> Having implemented both client and server sides of DIGEST-MD5, I can't
> say I'm very fond of it either. Personally, I'd be happy with TLS+PLAIN
> or CRAM-MD5 (or whatever else makes everyone happy without a significant
> security penalty; and I gather CRAM-MD5 is frowned upon in that regard).

I prefer TLS+PLAIN and TLS+CRAM-MD5 over DIGEST-MD5 as well.  I
believe they both offer better interoperability and security than
DIGEST-MD5 currently can.

/Simon