Re: [Uta] REQUIRETLS update

On 12/16/16 3:31 PM, Viktor Dukhovni wrote: >> On Dec 16, 2016, at 5:53 PM, Jim Fenton wrote: >> >> It seems that Viktor and I have differing views on the usefulness of >> MAYTLS and REQUIRETLS. That said, I agree that it doesn't make sense to >> have two mechanisms for

Re: [Uta] REQUIRETLS update

> On Dec 16, 2016, at 5:53 PM, Jim Fenton wrote: > > It seems that Viktor and I have differing views on the usefulness of > MAYTLS and REQUIRETLS. That said, I agree that it doesn't make sense to > have two mechanisms for this, so I will try to formulate a hybrid >

Re: [Uta] REQUIRETLS update

On 12/10/16 1:55 AM, ned+...@mrochek.com wrote: >> On Fri, Dec 09, 2016 at 04:13:08PM -, John Levine wrote: What would (for example) be the result if a client requested both the REQUIRETLS and a separate MAYTLS feature? >>> Given that mail servers will do whatever they wany with

Re: [Uta] REQUIRETLS update

> On Fri, Dec 09, 2016 at 04:13:08PM -, John Levine wrote: > > >What would (for example) be the result if a client requested both > > >the REQUIRETLS and a separate MAYTLS feature? > > > > Given that mail servers will do whatever they wany with REQUIRETLS > > suggestions, I wouldn't obsess

Re: [Uta] REQUIRETLS update

> > On Dec 9, 2016, at 5:40 PM, Arvel Hathcock wrote: > > > > +1. I'm for keeping this proposal as simple as possible. > The result would be substantial lack of orthogonality, with multiple > overlapping specifications, that would then be able to conflict with > each

Re: [Uta] REQUIRETLS update

On Fri, Dec 09, 2016 at 04:13:08PM -, John Levine wrote: > >What would (for example) be the result if a client requested both > >the REQUIRETLS and a separate MAYTLS feature? > > Given that mail servers will do whatever they wany with REQUIRETLS > suggestions, I wouldn't obsess about this.

Re: [Uta] REQUIRETLS update

>What would (for example) be the result if a client requested both >the REQUIRETLS and a separate MAYTLS feature? Given that mail servers will do whatever they wany with REQUIRETLS suggestions, I wouldn't obsess about this. R's, John ___ Uta mailing

Re: [Uta] REQUIRETLS update

> On Dec 9, 2016, at 5:40 PM, Arvel Hathcock wrote: > > +1. I'm for keeping this proposal as simple as possible. The result would be substantial lack of orthogonality, with multiple overlapping specifications, that would then be able to conflict with each other. What

Re: [Uta] REQUIRETLS update

I disagree. If that is a need, it should be a separate specification. Otherwise we bikeshed REQUIRETLS to death. +1. I'm for keeping this proposal as simple as possible. Arvel signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ Uta mailing list

Re: [Uta] REQUIRETLS update

> On Dec 7, 2016, at 2:28 PM, Jim Fenton wrote: > > As for usefulness, I tend to think of a (potentially) multi-hop > store-and-forward protocol like SMTP as being the wrong way to send an > urgent message in the first place. There are lots of operational snafus > that

Re: [Uta] REQUIRETLS update

> On Dec 7, 2016, at 4:33 AM, Jeremy Harris wrote: > > > I disagree. If that is a need, it should be a separate specification. > Otherwise we bikeshed REQUIRETLS to death. I don't see how extending the specification to cover both of the complementary behaviours brings

Re: [Uta] REQUIRETLS update

On Tue, Dec 06, 2016 at 04:30:32PM -0800, Jim Fenton wrote: > It has been a little while, so I thought it might be appropriate to give > the WG an update on the status of REQUIRETLS > (draft-fenton-smtp-require-tls-02). Is there any new thinking on supporting user signalling of TLS opt-out?

[Uta] REQUIRETLS update

It has been a little while, so I thought it might be appropriate to give the WG an update on the status of REQUIRETLS (draft-fenton-smtp-require-tls-02). There are now two prototype implementations: - Exim implementation by Jeremy Harris (announced on UTA list on 2 September) - MDaemon