On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 09:06:50AM +0100, Peer Heinlein wrote:
> At the moment it's a soft failure if a TLS connection fails due to
> cipher or protocol mismatches and if tls-encryption is enforced.
>
> F266840008 3238274 Tue Feb 25 08:32:09 x...@example.com
> (TLS is required, but was not offered by host
> mx3.me.com.akadns.net[17.172.34.64])
>
> I'd like to have this error hard, not soft. In my eyes it's not a
> tempoary failure, but a fatal error.
It is a fatal connection error, but many domains have multiple MX hosts,
and it would be wrong to give up on all, just because one is insecure.
The only things that cause recipients to be bounced are negative
replies to SMTP commands:
MAIL FROM: 5XX (all recipients)
RCPT TO: 5XX (just that recipient)
. 5XX (all recipients)
It would be unwise to make it otherwise. Just as it would be unwise
if the host did not offer SMTP service (Connection refused, timed
out, ...). Imputing permanent message failure to transport problems
that prevent the SMTP dialogue is not a good idea.
> At least I'd like to decide that by my own. Maybe it's worth making it
> configurable?
Sometimes, Postfix does not provide the shotgun even when your foot
is already in the way.
--
Viktor.
