--On Saturday, February 17, 2018 8:58 AM +1000 William Brown
wrote:
Personally, I'm all for it. I'd suggest using the above RFC as a
template
for one formalizing port 636, so it's finally a documented standard.
Great! Where do we go from here to get this formalised
On Mon, 2018-02-12 at 18:10 -0800, Quanah Gibson-Mount wrote:
> --On Tuesday, February 13, 2018 9:31 AM +1000 William Brown
> wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 2018-02-12 at 14:30 +0100, Michael Ströder wrote:
> > > HI!
> > >
> > > To me this rationale for SMTP submission with implicit
Dieter Klünter wrote:
> Am Mon, 12 Feb 2018 18:10:29 -0800
> schrieb Quanah Gibson-Mount :
>
>> --On Tuesday, February 13, 2018 9:31 AM +1000 William Brown
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 2018-02-12 at 14:30 +0100, Michael Ströder wrote:
HI!
To me
Am Mon, 12 Feb 2018 18:10:29 -0800
schrieb Quanah Gibson-Mount :
> --On Tuesday, February 13, 2018 9:31 AM +1000 William Brown
> wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 2018-02-12 at 14:30 +0100, Michael Ströder wrote:
> >> HI!
> >>
> >> To me this rationale for SMTP
--On Tuesday, February 13, 2018 9:31 AM +1000 William Brown
wrote:
On Mon, 2018-02-12 at 14:30 +0100, Michael Ströder wrote:
HI!
To me this rationale for SMTP submission with implicit TLS seems also
applicable to LDAPS vs. StartTLS:
On Mon, 2018-02-12 at 14:30 +0100, Michael Ströder wrote:
> HI!
>
> To me this rationale for SMTP submission with implicit TLS seems also
> applicable to LDAPS vs. StartTLS:
>
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8314#appendix-A
>
> So LDAPS should not be considered deprecated. Rather it should be