On 01/04/16 23:18, Viktor Dukhovni wrote: > On Fri, Apr 01, 2016 at 06:48:00PM -0300, Chris Newman wrote: >> I feel very strongly that policy for SMTP relay should be advertised by >> SMTP and protected by SMTP TLS.
> Unfortunately, in MTA-to-MTA SMTP, the receiving SMTP server has > no idea what domain the sending SMTP client wants to deliver mail > to at the time that it advertises its ESMTP extensions in the EHLO > response. Why must it be done then? Why not at RCPT TO time, via some suitable response? > in-band SMTP security policy > can only be communicated for the given SMTP server, and not the > recipient domain. Why should a response from one MX not be authoritative for security policy? It is taken to be for a message acceptance, or message hard-rejection. -- Cheers, Jeremy _______________________________________________ Uta mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/uta
