Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2001 23:37:34 +0100 From: "Si" <si@chemicalterrorism.com> To: <dan@langille.org> Cc: <chat@freebsd.org> Subject: RE: MTA authentications Message-ID: <IOEDLFEIFKOCCKPLMKOMOELJGFAA.si@chemicalterrorism.com> In-Reply-To: <200106101336.f5ADa1U61233@lists.unixathome.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG
> [mailto:owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG]On Behalf Of Dan Langille
> Sent: 10 June 2001 14:36
> To: Alex Zepeda
> Cc: chat@freebsd.org
> Subject: Re: MTA authentications
>
>
> On 10 Jun 2001, at 4:50, Alex Zepeda wrote:
>
> > On Sat, Jun 09, 2001 at 11:43:44PM -0400, Dan Langille wrote:
> >
> > > I also meant to say that it appears that this new "standard" is not
> > > backwards compatible.
> >
> > It is very much so. SSL is implemented via smtps (and depreciated), and
> > is essentially just SMTP being wrapped with SSL. TLS has been
> integrated
> > fully into SMTP (forgot the RFC here) via the STARTTLS (STLS in POP3)
> > command.
> >
> > Thus your MTA seems to be coerced into attempting an TLS
> connection (this
> > is advertised w/ the EHLO response)... and it's being denied. Likely
> > because of lack of certificate. If your MTA didn't support TLS at all,
> > you {probably,should} see a different error message.
[snip]
To answer your original post, i agree, these admins should not expect all
mta's out there to support their stuff and the fact that a user of their
domain is not aware that subscribing to mailing lists will bounce suggests
the admin has 'just done this'.
IMHO it's lame and theres no need with tools such as rbl etc...
Si.
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?IOEDLFEIFKOCCKPLMKOMOELJGFAA.si>