--On Monday, October 29, 2007 11:15 PM +0000 hyc@symas.com wrote:

Stay focused on the original ITS topic.

Discussing further with Howard offline, he notes that ssf=<n> is the minimum, not the requirement, so in the case I was thinking of:

security ssf=56

would be sufficient in that specific case, although all connections are forced to be encrypted at that point. I'm not sure the security directive then satisfies allowing anonymous binds to be unencrypted, which is why then using ACL statements is a better route for that data you specifically want to ensure is protected.

--Quanah

--

Quanah Gibson-Mount Principal Software Engineer Zimbra, Inc -------------------- Zimbra :: the leader in open source messaging and collaboration