On 01/10/2019 12:09 PM, John Levine wrote:
It is a poor idea to assume that everyone else's setup is like yours.
Agreed.
Similar with experience.
That's why I try to always articulate when I'm saying things based on my
experience / configuration and give ample amounts of room for people to
Thanks for your review, Alexey. Responses and a few clarifying questions
below.
On 1/9/19 8:34 AM, Alexey Melnikov wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Sorry for the delay in reviewing this. I reviewed it in 2018, but
> needed to work on expanding/decoding my notes so that they become
> useful for other readers.
>
>
In article ,
A. Schulze wrote:
>
>
>Am 09.01.19 um 17:34 schrieb John Levine:
>> If you have to validate 80 names, and each validation works 98% of the
>> time, validating all 80 alt names in a row only works 19% of the time.
>> That's the scalability issue.
>
>I run a webserver for > 1000
In article <893cac17-bcc8-3189-b694-1de31e5b7...@spamtrap.tnetconsulting.net>
you write:
>-=-=-=-=-=-
>
>On 01/09/2019 08:04 PM, John Levine wrote:
>> Since MUAs don't talk to MXes, I have no idea what this is supposed to mean.
>
>MUAs talk to MSA's, which in my experience are usually also an
On 01/09/2019 06:11 AM, John Levine wrote:
> Yes, I know. The chances of verifying 80 names in a row without one of
> them glitching does not seem high. I'd probably get rate limited first.
> The usual LE rollover for a single cert starts quite a long time before
> the old cert expires so if it
On Thu, Jan 10, 2019 at 05:41:30PM +, Salz, Rich wrote:
> I never said MTA STS did not scale. IF somehow I gave that impression, I
> apologize.
I did not hold firm on the MX pattern as SAN constraint rather than
MX name constraint, yielding to EKR's objection. So as a result,
deployment
On 01/09/2019 08:04 PM, John Levine wrote:
> Since MUAs don't talk to MXes, I have no idea what this is supposed to mean.
MUAs talk to MSA's, which in my experience are usually also an MTA.
Even if inbound and outbound MTAs are separated, they are usually
administered in the same manner.
Not
I never said MTA STS did not scale. IF somehow I gave that impression, I
apologize.
___
Uta mailing list
Uta@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/uta
Am 09.01.19 um 17:34 schrieb John Levine:
> If you have to validate 80 names, and each validation works 98% of the
> time, validating all 80 alt names in a row only works 19% of the time.
> That's the scalability issue.
I run a webserver for > 1000 domains. Fully automated, with one guiding
On 01/09/2019 08:04 PM, John Levine wrote:
Since MUAs don't talk to MXes, I have no idea what this is supposed to mean.
MUAs talk to MSA's, which in my experience are usually also an MTA.
Even if inbound and outbound MTAs are separated, they are usually
administered in the same manner. So
> >AFAIK, the relevant Let's Encrypt limits are:
> That might be right, it might not.
It's the value they document. Here's a link:
https://letsencrypt.org/docs/rate-limits/
I also note that I missed the point that this limit only applies on creation,
not renewal. So it doesn't look
11 matches
Mail list logo
