> On Oct 24, 2017, at 1:54 PM, Ivan Ristic <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> I don't know, I think people will find good uses for it if it becomes
> available. For example, here's one: virtual SMTP providers.
> One company maintains the core infrastructure, others build businesses
> that focus on branding, marketing, and support. Easy to do at scale with
> SNI, difficult without. Just an idea.
This is largely unnecessary. Email users never see the "branding"
of MX hosts. Users just see the destination domain. The MX records
are only seen by unattended software. The MX records can just point
at the appropriate infrastructure name.
Google and Microsoft already provide hosting to millions of domains
with just one certificate chain that directly or through a wildcard
matches all the MX hosts used to do so.
In Holland there was a recent merger between two hosting companies,
and at the conclusion a few thousand hosted domains updated their
MX records. Maintaining multiple sets of legacy names and managing
multiple certificate chains going forward is more complicated than
working with the hosted customers to update their DNS.
--
Viktor.
_______________________________________________
Uta mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/uta
