Received: from SOUTH-STATION-ANNEX.MIT.EDU by po7.MIT.EDU (5.61/4.7) id AA03078; Thu, 28 Dec 95 06:52:00 EST
Received: from trefle.saclay.cea.fr by MIT.EDU with SMTP
	id AA02296; Thu, 28 Dec 95 06:51:51 EST
Received: from oeillet.saclay.cea.fr by trefle.saclay.cea.fr
	(8.6.10/ CEANET-ROUTER-3.0) with ESMTP id MAA00941
	for <owner-kerberos@MIT.EDU>; Thu, 28 Dec 1995 12:51:23 +0100
Received: from localhost by oeillet.saclay.cea.fr
	(8.6.10/ CEANET-ROUTER-3.0) with internal id MCE17889
	; Thu, 28 Dec 1995 12:52:42 +0100
Date: Thu, 28 Dec 1995 12:52:42 +0100
From: Mailer-Daemon@oeillet.saclay.cea.fr (Mail Delivery Subsystem)
Subject: Returned mail: Cannot send message for 3 days
Message-Id: <199512281152.MCE17889@oeillet.saclay.cea.fr>
To: <owner-kerberos@MIT.EDU>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="MCE17889.820151562/oeillet.saclay.cea.fr"

This is a MIME-encapsulated message

--MCE17889.820151562/oeillet.saclay.cea.fr

The original message was received at Sun, 24 Dec 1995 05:34:50 +0100
from trefle.saclay.cea.fr [132.166.192.212]

   ----- The following addresses had delivery problems -----
<zucco@gardenia.saclay.cea.fr>  (unrecoverable error)

   ----- Transcript of session follows -----
<zucco@gardenia.saclay.cea.fr>... Deferred: Connection timed out with gardenia.saclay.cea.fr.
Message could not be delivered for 3 days
Message will be deleted from queue

   ----- Original message follows -----

--MCE17889.820151562/oeillet.saclay.cea.fr
Content-Type: message/rfc822

Return-Path: <owner-kerberos@MIT.EDU>
Received: from trefle.saclay.cea.fr by oeillet.saclay.cea.fr
	(8.6.10/ CEANET-ROUTER-3.0) with ESMTP id FAA28677
	for <zucco@gardenia.saclay.cea.fr>; Sun, 24 Dec 1995 05:34:50 +0100
Received: from MIT.EDU by trefle.saclay.cea.fr
	(8.6.10/ CEANET-ROUTER-3.0) with SMTP id FAA20275
	for <zucco@gardenia.saclay.cea.fr>; Sun, 24 Dec 1995 05:33:35 +0100
Received: from pad-thai.cam.ov.com by MIT.EDU with SMTP
	id AA08085; Sat, 23 Dec 95 23:22:36 EST
Received:  by pad-thai.cam.ov.com (8.6.12/)
	id <XAA29126@pad-thai.cam.ov.com>; Sat, 23 Dec 1995 23:25:31 -0500
Received: from GATEWAY by pad-thai.cam.ov.com with netnews
	for kerberos-wrapper@cam.ov.com (kerberos@mit.edu)
To: kerberos@MIT.EDU
Date: 23 Dec 1995 00:05:05 GMT
From: schwartz@galapagos.cse.psu.edu (Scott Schwartz)
Message-Id: <SCHWARTZ.95Dec22190505@galapagos.cse.psu.edu>
Organization: Penn State Comp Sci & Eng
Sender: usenet@cam.ov.com
References: <4bbpu4$okr@kocrsv08.delcoelect.com>
Subject: Re: Kerberos Installed Base Stats

swlodin@delcoelect.com (Steve Lodin) writes:
| I heard from a Kerberos vendor at a recent computer security
| conference that the installed base of Kerberos is about 90% Kerberos
| Version 4 and 10% Kerberos Version 5.

That sounds reasonable.  V5 has been shaky in beta, not to mention
suffering from bloat compared to V4.

Around here there are 100,000 principles using V4 (AFS version) in
production, and three principles using V5 from MIT just to try it out.
The AFS users might switch to DCE someday, while a couple of
departments are now looking at SSH and avoiding Kerberos altogether.

--MCE17889.820151562/oeillet.saclay.cea.fr--

