Re: POP handling commands given in wrong state
Mykyta Yevstifeyev <[email protected]> Wed, 27 Jul 2011 08:05:18 +0300
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.pop3ext |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
26.07.2011 17:35, Randall Gellens wrote:
> At 6:17 AM -0700 7/26/11, Randall Gellens wrote:
>
>> Per RFC 3206, the server should issue the AUTH-RESP-CODE capability
>> tag, indicating "that the server includes the AUTH response code with
>> any authentication error caused by a problem with the user's
>> credentials" and then in the case you cite, don't issue the AUTH
>> response code in an -ERR response to USER.
>>
>> By issuing the AUTH response code and then not including the AUTH
>> response code, that indicates that the error has nothing to do with
>> the user's credentials.
>
> Just to be clear, if the server issued AUTH-RESP-CODE, then the result
> to USER can be interpreted:
> +OK: Accepted, proceed to PASS
> -ERR [AUTH]: Failed, problem with user credentials (not
> likely with USER anyway)
> -ERR [SYS/TEMP]: Failed due to temporary system problem, try
> again later
> -ERR [SYS/PERM]: Failed due to permanent system problem, advise
> user to call for help
> -ERR: No problem w/ credentials nor system, if you
> used TLS w/ cert, maybe authenticated already
This is an interesting idea. We can also define the new code, AUTH-YET,
to answer USER/PASS/AUTH given when already authenticated:
-ERR [AUTH-YET]: Already authenticated
-ERR: Other error.
The initially proposed WRONG-STATE can be a generalization of the
aforementioned AUTH-YET, eg.
C: STAT
S: -ERR [WRONG-STATE/AUTHORIZATION] Not authenticated yet; current state
is AUTHORIZATION
---
C: <authenticates itself>
C: USER foo
S: -ERR [WRONG-STATE/TRANSACTION] Already in TRANSACTION.
---
etc.
Mykyta
>
>