> On Oct 19, 2016, at 1:26 PM, Felipe Gasper <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Our reason went like this: many email clients will assume that “[email protected]”
> uses either “foo.org” or “mail.foo.org” as a mail server.
>
> When the only way to have working SSL is for the client to know about
> “shared49.somehost.where-is-this.com”, the client and server have to be smart
> enough to do autoconfig, or the user has to type that in manually. This makes
> for a worse user experience and increases support requests.
It seems you're describing a port 587 requirement. I have some
sympathy for those. RFC 6186 was supposed to handle that, but
never got any traction. If/as DNSSEC becomes more pervasive,
perhaps that will evolve. I the mean-time, I do understand the
pressure to accomodate those pesky port 587 users. There are,
FWIW rather large providers for whom a shared mail server
name is working well...
--
Viktor.
--
## List details at https://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/
