> On Oct 24, 2017, at 3:35 PM, Ivan Ristic <ivan.ris...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Viktor, you're now discussing the viability of the business model. But, just
> because you wouldn't attempt it, it doesn't meant that others wouldn't.
I am discussing *plausible* requirements, not hypothetical ones.
> The point was that SNI makes this particular business model possible.
I don't believe it does. Shared hosting for non-cooperating separately
branded MTAs is not particularly plausible.
>
> There's probably a ton of small ISPs who might actually be interested in doing
> exactly something like this. At least here in the UK, when you get an Internet
> connection you also get a bunch of email addresses.
And so pay a third party to do something for your users that generates no
revenue
for you and that the users can get for free from Gmail, etc?
I'll leave it to the draft authors to determine whether a plausible or
compelling case for requiring SNI has been presented.
My final comment is a reminder that the privacy leak is not hypothetical at
least for Microsoft's hosted customers with MX hosts that have "example-com"
labels prepended to ".mail.protection.outlook.com".
--
Viktor.
_______________________________________________
Uta mailing list
Uta@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/uta
