I can't imagine what went on in the minds of the developers who thought
it necessary to implement an "X-ANONYMOUSTLS" ESMTP extension. What's
wrong with STARTTLS, that this was felt to be needed?
Does anyone known where this might be, at least in part, documented?
I've just run into a domain that promises TLS via DANE TLSA records, but
does not offer STARTTLS:
posttls-finger: < 220 .................... Microsoft ESMTP MAIL Service
ready at Wed, 27 Dec 2023 01:59:51 +0100
posttls-finger: > EHLO ...................
posttls-finger: < 250-.................... Hello [............]
posttls-finger: < 250-SIZE 37748736
posttls-finger: < 250-PIPELINING
posttls-finger: < 250-DSN
posttls-finger: < 250-ENHANCEDSTATUSCODES
posttls-finger: < 250-X-ANONYMOUSTLS
posttls-finger: < 250-AUTH NTLM
posttls-finger: < 250-X-EXPS GSSAPI NTLM
posttls-finger: < 250-8BITMIME
posttls-finger: < 250-BINARYMIME
posttls-finger: < 250-CHUNKING
posttls-finger: < 250-SMTPUTF8
posttls-finger: < 250 XRDST
posttls-finger: > QUIT
posttls-finger: < 221 2.0.0 Service closing transmission channel
It offers only X-ANONYMOUSTLS instead. I could comment further, but I
should refrain. :-(
--
Viktor.
_______________________________________________
Postfix-users mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
