In article <[email protected]> you write: >MX servers would not be violating RFC if they rejected plain text >connection attempts (over 90% of which these days are spam).
10% is a pretty fat long tail. The people I know who run production mail systems are much more concerned about receiving all of the real mail than rejecting spam earlier. We went through all of this when we invented MTA-STS. We know that setting up a web server can be non-trivial but for a lot of places, it's far easier than geting DNSSEC to work. I recall a dinner at the Buenos Aires IETF where we were trying to figure out if there were a reasonable way to signal stuff in the DNS. Magic names certainly came up. I think it would be a good idea for anyone interested in this topic to go back through the mailing list discussion and read the drafts and explain what is different now that we didn't know when we defined MTA-STS a few months ago. R's, John _______________________________________________ Uta mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/uta
