On Tue, Feb 14, 2023 at 12:00:45PM -0500, Wietse Venema wrote:
> Tomas Korbar:
> > Hi guys,
> > It's great news that this is at least in non production release!
> > Thanks for all your work on this. Let me know if I can provide further
> > help.
>
> As you can see I overhauled the user interface a bit. Does the user
> interface cover your use cases well? The documentation describes a
> number of examples.
A potential MTA-to-MTA use-case is to specifically designate the domains
for which the SRV lookup must take place (no MX fallback).
* Define an "srvsmtp" transport in master.cf that only uses SRV
records for "smtp".
* Use the transport table to map some peer domains to that
transport.
For some unclear reason these could be preferred over MX records for the
destinations in question.
Fiction aside, the use-cases look reasonable to me. I haven't thought
through of what downgrade (from e.g. DANE) are introduced by the various
(optional) fallback controls. If they do introduce potential
downgrades, a brief note to that effect may be warranted in the docs.
--
Viktor.
