Well, I really just wanted to see what the rest of the community was doing in regards to this. Seems the resounding answer is a "prefer TLS, but don't disqualify if no TLS" or "opportunistic" TLS.
However, experience has also taught me, if you don't force people to make changes then they're not going to change. In regards to that, maybe this never becomes an issue. But if the point is to go all TLS all the time, you're going to have to publicly shame those that are dragging their feet or just cut off communication with them entirely. Maybe some of the administrators to these mail servers don't realize that their mail servers aren't handling STARTTLS and bringing awareness to that (in the form of their users not receiving all of their emails) is a way to light a fire under them. I just wanted to gauge what other mail server administrators were doing in regards to this. The response is kind of what i expected, but the shift in wanting TLS and encryption on every connection, kind of made me question what the response would be. On Wed, Aug 26, 2020 at 3:02 PM Michael Orlitzky via mailop < mailop@mailop.org> wrote: > On 2020-08-26 12:50, Scott Mutter via mailop wrote: > > I've been toying with the idea of forcing outbound SMTP connections to > > use TLS, but thought I'd take a quick look and see who might miss mail > > if this done. > > This sounds good at first but if you make a flow chart, all paths lead > to either "nothing changes" or "shoot yourself in the foot." There's no > scenario that I know of where forcing TLS (as opposed to "opportunistic" > TLS) improves anything. > > _______________________________________________ > mailop mailing list > mailop@mailop.org > https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop >
_______________________________________________ mailop mailing list mailop@mailop.org https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop
