Jeremy Harris via Exim-users (Mo 18 Nov 2019 17:38:41
CST):
> On 18/11/2019 05:05, Heiko Schlittermann via Exim-users wrote:
> > Ok, considering the importance of the information, @Jeremy,
> > how big is the risk of braking anything, if we extend the default header
> > information to include the
On Mon, Nov 18, 2019 at 12:13:47PM +0100, Cyborg via Exim-users wrote:
> BTW: I always missed exims default level of detailed loginformations
> when i had to work with other mailservers ;)
If there's something missing from Postfix logging, please feel free
to drop me a note off-list.
--
Vik
Am 18.11.19 um 10:38 schrieb Jeremy Harris via Exim-users:
> On 18/11/2019 05:05, Heiko Schlittermann via Exim-users wrote:
>> Ok, considering the importance of the information, @Jeremy,
>> how big is the risk of braking anything, if we extend the default header
>> information to include the TLS ve
On 18/11/2019 05:05, Heiko Schlittermann via Exim-users wrote:
> Ok, considering the importance of the information, @Jeremy,
> how big is the risk of braking anything, if we extend the default header
> information to include the TLS version? If I understood well, it was
> there before, but is missi
Jeremy Harris via Exim-users (So 17 Nov 2019 21:23:47
CST):
> Surely choosing implies not using the default? Which is possible, just
> by setting received_header_text to your choice.
>
> 4.next adds a (TLS1.x) comment to the default; we're too late
> in the release cycle to change the upcoming r
On 17/11/2019 14:23, Jeremy Harris via Exim-users wrote:
> Surely choosing implies not using the default? Which is possible, just
> by setting received_header_text to your choice.
Sure I can change it for all Exims I'm responsible for. But what I meant
was that I can't choose it for all the Exims
Am 17.11.19 um 14:24 schrieb Jeremy Harris via Exim-users:
> On 14/11/2019 00:10, Cyborg via Exim-users wrote:
>> Also, the data protection agencies in Germany have gained vital knowlage
>> about tls usage via those
>> brilliant logfiles of exim.
> There's a difference between logfiles and Received
On 13/11/2019 17:27, Wolfgang Breyha via Exim-users wrote:
> And that's nothing I can choose locally for all running Exims using defaults.
Surely choosing implies not using the default? Which is possible, just
by setting received_header_text to your choice.
4.next adds a (TLS1.x) comment to the
On 14/11/2019 00:10, Cyborg via Exim-users wrote:
> Also, the data protection agencies in Germany have gained vital knowlage
> about tls usage via those
> brilliant logfiles of exim.
There's a difference between logfiles and Received: headers.
--
Cheers,
Jeremy
--
## List details at https://l
> On Nov 13, 2019, at 7:10 PM, Cyborg via Exim-users
> wrote:
>
> It would be better to change the rfc and make it mandatory to log the
> version and cipher used ;)
There's no IETF RFC police. MTAs will log what their developers and
administrators conspire to log. So there's no "mandatory", b
Am 13.11.19 um 18:27 schrieb Wolfgang Breyha via Exim-users:
> I think it's no good idea to change the default in favor of that RFC while
> dropping important information like the TLS Version used.
>
Those informations are vital to make checks for contacts, using old and
broken tls versions.
With
> On Nov 13, 2019, at 6:01 PM, Wolfgang Breyha via Exim-users
> wrote:
>
>> I agree that the new format is inadequate, especially for TLS 1.3.
>> In Postfix I've kept, and even expanded the "comment" form of the
>> TLS trace info. For example:
>
> Do you know of any proposed improvements to RF
On 13/11/2019 18:46, Viktor Dukhovni via Exim-users wrote:
> I agree that the new format is inadequate, especially for TLS 1.3.
> In Postfix I've kept, and even expanded the "comment" form of the
> TLS trace info. For example:
Do you know of any proposed improvements to RFC 8314? I did not find a
On Wed, Nov 13, 2019 at 06:27:42PM +0100, Wolfgang Breyha via Exim-users wrote:
> While testing 4.93-RCx I recognized that it uses a new default for Received:
> headers including TLS information as RFC 8314 defines it using
> by with esmtps tls TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384
> instead of
> by with
Hi!
While testing 4.93-RCx I recognized that it uses a new default for Received:
headers including TLS information as RFC 8314 defines it using
by with esmtps tls TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384
instead of
by with esmtps (TLSv1.3:TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256)
Am I the only one missing the TLS Version
15 matches
Mail list logo