> On Feb 28, 2019, at 5:49 PM, Jim Fenton <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> I'm complaining more about the transition from (3) to (4) than either one
>> per se. If I open a connection and then establish a (new?) TLS-protected
>> session, that seems to mostly be STARTTLS. But if I use implicit TLS, why
>> do I need to bother with (3) at all?
>
> There's one circumstance where implicit TLS might happen, and that's
> message submission. It's probably step 4 that's the problem there, since
> the TLS session is negotiated earlier in that case.
Yes, thanks, indeed there's potential for implicit TLS during initial
submission (now that port 465 is back from the dead) and perhaps also
final delivery via LMTP. So my note about STARTTLS being the only
relevant protocol may not cover the "edge" cases.
--
Viktor.
_______________________________________________
Uta mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/uta
