On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 02:06:43PM -0500, Wietse Venema wrote:
> Viktor Dukhovni:
> > With "may" there is no protection against active attacks, so no
> > CPU cycles are wasted going through the motions of certificate
> > checks whose results are ignored.
>
> We may want to provide an option to make the motions anyway. Even
> if the outcome has no direct effect on whether mail will be delivered,
> it can be useful for change-detection purposes.
Yes, that's on the agenda for 3.1. Perhaps we'll get started on
that with the Spring thaw (whenever that might be).
--
Viktor.
