On Fri, May 28, 2010 at 11:56:15AM -0400, Phil Howard wrote:
> I'm not disagreeing with this. I think there should be an SMTPS.
Rhetorical question: How would a sending domain know that a particular
receiving domain supports SMTPS?
Clearly SMTPS would not be an alternative to SMTP for MX hosts, rather
it is only alternative to to port 587+STARTTLS for submission servers.
This means that if we want to support (opportunistic) TLS for domain
to domain delivery, we need STARTTLS. And in fact opportunistic TLS
is now widely (though not universally) deployed in this context.
Given that SMTP + STARTTLS is available, there is little need for yet
another protocol for submission. So on the whole SMTPS would not solve
any issues that SMTP + STARTTLS does not handle adequately. Over and
out.
--
Viktor.
P.S. Morgan Stanley is looking for a New York City based, Senior Unix
system/email administrator to architect and sustain our perimeter email
environment. If you are interested, please drop me a note.
