Talk:Secure Password Authentication

Most of this information should probably be in Integrated Windows Authentication or LM hash. --12.40.237.50 13:52, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I don't get it. There's lots of nerd stuff in here, but my initial question (if SPA is neccessary and what it contributes to security) isn't answered at all. 85.183.212.186 (talk) 10:25, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I put a speedy delete tag on it, because it gives absolutely no information on what this actually is and nothing about whether it actually is used anywhere.

There is no help in Microsoft Mail, and when I googled it, the only sites I found said not to use this option.

I think, therefore, it would be better not to have an article at all than a misleading article that makes you think this is in use anywhere. --Uncle Ed (talk) 18:19, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

May well be valid concerns but do not qualify the article for speedy deletion. Suggest taking it to WP:AFD Nancy ^talk 18:26, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I previously proposed a merge to Simple Mail Transfer Protocol, but it was declined. See Talk:Simple Mail Transfer Protocol#Merge proposal for the discussion. A merge would be better than a deletion. Fences&Windows 19:07, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is no reason this should not have its own article. It's not a part of SMTP, and the merger there would be wrong. But it does use the SMTP extension mechanism, and should be at least mentioned as such in the relevant articles. It's clearly notable since 3rd party references refer to it. The claim made here that the article contains absolutely no information is clearly wrong and biased as the article mentions its use in MS mail systems and a quick Google search shows many references that support the statement. Someone just needs to sit down and write some more extensive prose and collect more references. The fact that most people recommend not to use, is no reason to deny its existence. Kbrose (talk) 19:51, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]