Re: [ietf-smtp] why are we reinventing mta-sts ?

[Viruthagiri Thirumavalavan <[e-mail]>]

Yes that's a good idea to solve this problem. But then again, people still
have to pay money to make their mail secure. Not everyone would go for
that. We can't always go like "we already defined the MTA-STS standard. You
all have to live with it".

So there is nothing wrong in discussing the alternatives. As Keith said, a
new proposal need to have a high bar to become standard.  And if DoT is not
possible as John said, then my proposal still have a long way to go.

Thanks

On Mon, Oct 7, 2019 at 11:00 PM Valdis Klētnieks <[e-mail]>
wrote:

> On Mon, 07 Oct 2019 22:55:19 +0530, Viruthagiri Thirumavalavan said:
>
> > We both use a different demographic to define "end user" for MTA-STS. The
> > way you see it, an end user is a "mail server operator".  The way I see
> it,
> > an end user is a "small business" who hosts their mails in a third party
> > mail service like Gmail. Configuring an HTTPS server is not going to be
> > easy for such small businesses.
>
> The obvious answer is, of course, to write the proposal such that the
> https server
> can be outsourced the same way the email service was outsourced, and the
> DNS
> service was outsourced to a DNS hosting company.
>
> There's an obvious business opportunity for hosting the email, the DNS,
> the http, and
> any other bits as one turnkey package.
>


-- 
Best Regards,

Viruthagiri Thirumavalavan
Dombox, Inc.