I can't imagine what went on in the minds of the developers who thought it necessary to implement an "X-ANONYMOUSTLS" ESMTP extension. What's wrong with STARTTLS, that this was felt to be needed?
Does anyone known where this might be, at least in part, documented? I've just run into a domain that promises TLS via DANE TLSA records, but does not offer STARTTLS: posttls-finger: < 220 .................... Microsoft ESMTP MAIL Service ready at Wed, 27 Dec 2023 01:59:51 +0100 posttls-finger: > EHLO ................... posttls-finger: < 250-.................... Hello [............] posttls-finger: < 250-SIZE 37748736 posttls-finger: < 250-PIPELINING posttls-finger: < 250-DSN posttls-finger: < 250-ENHANCEDSTATUSCODES posttls-finger: < 250-X-ANONYMOUSTLS posttls-finger: < 250-AUTH NTLM posttls-finger: < 250-X-EXPS GSSAPI NTLM posttls-finger: < 250-8BITMIME posttls-finger: < 250-BINARYMIME posttls-finger: < 250-CHUNKING posttls-finger: < 250-SMTPUTF8 posttls-finger: < 250 XRDST posttls-finger: > QUIT posttls-finger: < 221 2.0.0 Service closing transmission channel It offers only X-ANONYMOUSTLS instead. I could comment further, but I should refrain. :-( -- Viktor. _______________________________________________ Postfix-users mailing list -- postfix-users@postfix.org To unsubscribe send an email to postfix-users-le...@postfix.org