--On Wednesday, October 16, 2013 19:40 +0200 Timo Sirainen
<tss(_at_)iki(_dot_)fi> wrote:
It will mean that there will be more bounced mail. But I
would argue that this is what the user desired as described
above.
Bounces could be avoided by doing a check immediately when
"send securely" checkbox is clicked. If the destination SMTP
server doesn't advertise MSMD capability, the UI would
immediately show that it's not possible to send the mail
securely.
As long as there isn't a situation in which the first-hop relay
advertises MSMD but some subsequent one does not. In that case,
it will be very hard to avoid either a bounce or lost mail.
When we did a similar analysis for EAI, we came to the
conclusion that most of the problems could be eliminated by
being sure that no less-capable MTA was configured in the MX
collection for a given destination (and the submission server
talks only to servers for the destination, with no intermediate
"smart hosts" involved). But a more complicated capability
matrix will make that harder to guarantee.
john
_______________________________________________
ietf-smtp mailing list
ietf-smtp(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-smtp