That is what I did in the end.
At first, my SMTP server was sending the client an error, and then closing
the connection, but it was breaking some clients.  IIRC, it was a Microsoft
Exchange server complaining that it received two responses to one command,
and of coure, that was true.

e.g.
C: STARTTLS
S: 220 Ready to start TLS
<TLS negotiation fails>
S: 454  4.4.3  TLS not available: error negotiating handshake
C: huh?

So I just skipped the error, and dropped the connection.
n8

On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 1:19 AM, Ivar Lumi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>
>
> Thanks,  this is what i was looking for.
>
> So in case of SMTP, server just should close connection.
>
>
>
> Philip Guenther wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 23 Oct 2008, Ivar Lumi wrote:
>>
>>
>>> After reading RFC 3207, i found probably non documented item.
>>>
>>> For example:
>>> C: STARTTLS
>>> S: 220 Go ahead
>>> C: <starts TLS negotiation>
>>> C & S: <negotiate a TLS session>
>>> C & S: <check result of negotiation>
>>>
>>> Now if negotiation fails, whats then ?
>>> Send error ? close connection ?
>>> Whats the proper action ?
>>>
>>>
>>
>> RFC 3207 cites/defers to RFC 2246 for the definition of the TLS protocol.
>> So follow the rules over in the TLS specification.  To quote RFC 2246:
>>
>> 7.2.2. Error alerts
>>
>>   Error handling in the TLS Handshake protocol is very simple. When an
>>   error is detected, the detecting party sends a message to the other
>>   party. Upon transmission or receipt of an fatal alert message, both
>>   parties immediately close the connection.  <...>
>> ...
>>   handshake_failure
>>      Reception of a handshake_failure alert message indicates that the
>>      sender was unable to negotiate an acceptable set of security
>>      parameters given the options available.  This is a fatal error.
>>
>> (Other errors may apply, depending on exactly what you mean by
>> "negotiation fails".)
>>
>> I.e., if your end detects a fatal error, send a fatal error alert and
>> close the connection.  If your end receives a fatal error alert, close the
>> connection.
>>
>>
>> Philip Guenther
>>
>>
>
>

Reply via email to