Re: AW: AW: URGENT HELP: Backport STARTTLS from 3.0 to 2.3.2 [unsigned]

Thanks for the inputs..I will explore 3.0 beta.. On 04-Jul-2016 12:49 PM, "Bernd Waibel" wrote: > Hello Mahesh, > > we are using 2.3.2 till now. We are currently switching to 3.0 beta4, but > I do not have information about STARTTLS stability. > > One reason for switching

AW: AW: URGENT HELP: Backport STARTTLS from 3.0 to 2.3.2 [unsigned]

Hello Mahesh, we are using 2.3.2 till now. We are currently switching to 3.0 beta4, but I do not have information about STARTTLS stability. One reason for switching is STARTTLS. We do not want to implement it on our own. The other reason is: 2.3.2 is very old. There are some other problems,

Re: AW: URGENT HELP: Backport STARTTLS from 3.0 to 2.3.2

Thank a lot Bernd...I will look at the handlers. The current requirement is to act as a receiver.. One more question. I see James 3 SMTP implementation is mentioned as stable. Is this true for STARTTLS as well ? On 04-Jul-2016 12:20 PM, "Bernd Waibel" wrote: > Hello Mahesh,

WG: URGENT HELP: Backport STARTTLS from 3.0 to 2.3.2 [unsigned]

Hello Mahesh, i think there is no backport. For STARTTLS there should be two sides: - James acting as receiver - James acting as sender You have the option to use TLS in James, by configuring a "org.apache.avalon.cornerstone.blocks.sockets.TLSServerSocketFactory". But this is for strict TLS

AW: URGENT HELP: Backport STARTTLS from 3.0 to 2.3.2

Hello Mahesh, i think there is no backport. For STARTTLS there should be two sides: - James acting as receiver - James acting as sender You have the option to use TLS in James, by configuring a "org.apache.avalon.cornerstone.blocks.sockets.TLSServerSocketFactory". But this is for strict TLS