<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
<br>
<br>
Jim Trigg wrote:
<blockquote
cite="mid20254.128.221.197.21.1162575011.squirrel@mail.scadian.net"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">On Fri, November 3, 2006 12:09 pm, Marc Perkel wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Gunter Ohrner wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Am Donnerstag, 2. November 2006 23:43 schrieb Marc Perkel:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">email. And the virus wouldn't have access to the IMAP password so
</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Why not?
</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Because the virus wouldn't have the password.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
That doesn't answer the question. Why would the IMAP password be any less
accessible to a virus than the SMTP password? (For that matter, what you
just used was "proof by assertion" which is meaningless. "The virus
wouldn't have access to the IMAP password because the virus wouldn't have
the password.")
Jim Trigg
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
IMAP requires a password. SMTP it's optional. I think that consumer
SMTP should be replaced with not only something that requires a
password, but that the user has to log into the account that they are
sending email from. SMTP doesn't have to be tied to IMAP accounts. If
you have an SMTP account you can spoof anyone. My idea with IMAP
sending is to deny the ability of the sender to use a different email
address that the one that they are logged into. This is to prevent spam
and spoofing.<br>
<br>
</body>
</html>