* Renaud Allard: >> Is there some sort of configuration hack that could help to address >> this problem? I don't want to fall back to SSL 3.0 globally (hich >> would solve this particular problem), and sender-specific >> configuration is only a last resort. > > sslv2 is deprecated (in 2006, all major browsers dropped support for > it). Most applications still understand them, but it is not recommended > for use anymore. So sticking with ssl3 still looks like the best and > easiest approach.
Yes, but I'd still prefer to use TLS 1.0. 8-/ >> The messages the remote hosts are trying to deliver aren't important, >> I guess. It's probably just backscatter. >> > Then why bother that much? We are experiencing a few such pointless failed TLS handshakes per second (from two hosts). Right now, it's not a problem, but we might need to do something about it if the rate increases by one or two magnitudes. As I'm a bit in the dark what to do, I wanted to discuss potential solutions well before we actually need them. -- Florian Weimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> BFK edv-consulting GmbH http://www.bfk.de/ Kriegsstraße 100 tel: +49-721-96201-1 D-76133 Karlsruhe fax: +49-721-96201-99 -- ## List details at http://lists.exim.org/mailman/listinfo/exim-users ## Exim details at http://www.exim.org/ ## Please use the Wiki with this list - http://wiki.exim.org/
