On Thu, Sep 25, 2025 at 05:37:18PM +0200, lejeczek via Postfix-users wrote:
> Inasmuch I do not, well, did not until now, use 465 but I've been using -
> not with Ceph though - 587 all the time.
> Is it ok to assume that, that part - 587 - of the config is good and it's
> only Ceph which is incapable to of working with that?
At this point in time you would typically expect a mixture of SMTP
submission client behaviours, with some using "implicit TLS" on port 465
and others usine "STARTTLS" on port 587. Expect to support both for
some time to come, with essentially identical settings, other than
wrapper mode = yes/no.
> Lastly - that decimal/hex lines or whichever non-human notations, in my logs
> - that has got be this way & it's only for source-code-speakers or can be
> tweaked so "regular" humans could make use of it?
Postfix logs unexpected input, converting non-printable data to escaped
numeric form. When a client sends a TLS packet instead of ASCII SMTP
commands, the result will look like noise to neophytes, but others will
recognise the payload as misdirected TLS traffic (or a misconfigured
service that should be, but isn't, expecting TLS).
--
Viktor. 🇺🇦 Слава Україні!
_______________________________________________
Postfix-users mailing list -- postfix-users@postfix.org
To unsubscribe send an email to postfix-users-le...@postfix.org
