* Steffen Nurpmeso via Postfix-users: > >Are you referring to [1], i.e. your own draft? "Nenne Ross und > >Reiter." > > Well i think that became obvious from the rest of the message.
I think it is just good manners to let people know explicitly who is trying to promote a subject, and why. Also, that draft is the basis of any discussion, so why not link to it? > >The way I percieve it, this attempt to get rid of STARTTLS is a > >"solution" for an imaginary problem. > > Nah, really not. I'm sure I do. You have not convinced me that there is any real problem in need of "solving" here. > We are talking about multiple roundtrips during a connection phase > were pipelining is not yet possible, and which are blocking thus. This > is anything but imaginary, .. A few extra bytes transferred in either direction are, at most, an imaginary problem to me. Considering that the machine running my primary MX is moving terabytes each month, I have no issue with the puny amount of STARTTLS related traffic. As for blocking, what exactly do you mean? > also taking into account that SMTP is the only of many email (and > other) protocols for which it is like that. You are comparing apples and oranges. SMTP transfer does not involve users waiting for a quick response, unlike HTTPS or IMAPS. A little extra time hurts nobody. E-mail transfer is not comparable to an online shop or bank. -Ralph _______________________________________________ Postfix-users mailing list -- postfix-users@postfix.org To unsubscribe send an email to postfix-users-le...@postfix.org
