[Mimedefang] Totally off-topic

[John Rudd]

David F. Skoll wrote:
> ... but funny: http://support.microsoft.com/kb/276304
> 
> Who says MS doesn't take security seriously?
> 

I like their little justification:

NOTE: This is not a common case; it occurs only when you configure 
Windows 2000 to authenticate against an MIT Kerberos domain.



In other words: when you're doing the RIGHT thing, there's an error. 
When you're doing something STUPID (using AD for your KDC), there's no 
error.  Yet another case of MS purposefully being incompatible with the 
primary implementation of a protocol?