SMTP Over TLS on Port 26 - Implicit TLS Proposal [Feedback Request]

Sat Jan 12 03:48:48 UTC 2019

If you all think my prefix proposal have some merits, it still paves the
way for future smtps proposals. So I have no issues with killing smtps part
of my proposal.

As for signalling, I'm not sure whether moving the signalling part to
another record type is a good idea.

Because my signalling proposal is flawed without DNSSEC as Brandon Martin
pointed out.

So if we move the signalling part to another record type, then we may have
to deal with multiple record set signatures. Also there is one more
configuration for the end user. But i'm open for suggestions.

To the person who trolled me. I'm here to have some intellectual
conversation. So please stop trolling me. You are an engineer. So don't
behave like a teen in youtube comments section.  I'm proposing these
stuffs, so the world can benefit something. By trolling me, you are just
killing that.

To everyone else, please go easy on me. If I'm little off on something,
please forgive my ignorance. The reason I'm here is because you all know
these stuffs better than me. I'm here to get some feedback.

If you all think opening a new port is waste of time, I'm ok with that. But
if you see some benefits on Implicit TLS over Opportunistic TLS, please
point that out too.

Thank you for your time.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20190112/3953a785/attachment.html>