It appears that Peter Saint-Andre <stpe...@stpeter.im> said: >On 5/27/22 7:51 AM, Stephen Farrell wrote: > >> - section 3.2: I wondered why no mention of MTA-STS or >> DANE? Could/should we say that MTA implementations >> SHOULD include support for such strictness? > >Hi Stephen, > >Although these technologies (RFC 8461 and RFC 7672) seem sensible, I >don't think we authors have a good handle on whether they are widely >deployed enough to justify a SHOULD in a BCP. We will reach out to folks >in the email community for guidance.
MTA-STS is in wide use. All of the large mail systems I know publish mta-sts records and a lot of the smaller ones. DANE is less widely used but Viktor would have the numbers. I know that Comcast buth publishes DANE records and checks them on their outbound mail so they might be willing to share some observations. R's, John _______________________________________________ Uta mailing list Uta@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/uta
