* [Bloat] nearly 5 years of bufferbloat.net
@ 2016-01-26 23:16 Dave Täht
2016-01-27 17:16 ` [Bloat] STARTTLS [was: nearly 5 years of bufferbloat.net] Juliusz Chroboczek
0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread
From: Dave Täht @ 2016-01-26 23:16 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: bloat
and I needed to take a break from it. For your bemusement, see:
http://the-edge.taht.net/post/starttls_considered_helpful/
Anyone have any ideas as to what to do this year?
Only things I can think of are:
move: bufferbloat.net to new hosting
finish: cake, the ietf drafts
start: make-wifi-fast
I'd like to somehow get a long term bufferbloat trendline from dslreports.
That's it. What else would be worth doing?
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* [Bloat] STARTTLS [was: nearly 5 years of bufferbloat.net]
2016-01-26 23:16 [Bloat] nearly 5 years of bufferbloat.net Dave Täht
@ 2016-01-27 17:16 ` Juliusz Chroboczek
2016-01-27 18:48 ` Dave Täht
0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread
From: Juliusz Chroboczek @ 2016-01-27 17:16 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Dave Täht; +Cc: bloat
> http://the-edge.taht.net/post/starttls_considered_helpful/
Did you bounce mail when the first MX contacted didn't do STARTTLS, or did
you bounce when none of the MXes for a domain supported it? In other
words, did you treat lack of STARTTLS as a transient or permanent error?
-- Juliusz
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* Re: [Bloat] STARTTLS [was: nearly 5 years of bufferbloat.net]
2016-01-27 17:16 ` [Bloat] STARTTLS [was: nearly 5 years of bufferbloat.net] Juliusz Chroboczek
@ 2016-01-27 18:48 ` Dave Täht
0 siblings, 0 replies; 3+ messages in thread
From: Dave Täht @ 2016-01-27 18:48 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Juliusz Chroboczek; +Cc: bloat
On 1/27/16 9:16 AM, Juliusz Chroboczek wrote:
>> http://the-edge.taht.net/post/starttls_considered_helpful/
>
> Did you bounce mail when the first MX contacted didn't do STARTTLS, or did
> you bounce when none of the MXes for a domain supported it? In other
> words, did you treat lack of STARTTLS as a transient or permanent error?
Postfix when set to encrypt always treats lack of TLS support on the
other exchanger(s) as a transient error, and retries by default for 3
days.
Example:
Jan 27 17:16:11 mail postfix/smtp[10770]: 801CD21331:
to=<oneofmystillannoyedcorrespondents@conman.org>,
relay=brevard.conman.org[elided]:25, delay=67644, delays=67640/0.01/4/0, dsn
=4.7.4, status=deferred (TLS is required, but was not offered by host
brevard.conman.org[elided])
So this made it safer to temporarily make it mandatory, do email for a
few hours, get who failed out of my logs, craft the email to those
failing, then relax the defaults for starttls back to "may".
google reports that 82% of their outbound email and only 58% of their
inbound email is covered by starttls, and there are distinct regional
differences... notably, free.fr in your region is not using starttls on
inbound at all, it seems. Ton of data at:
https://www.google.com/transparencyreport/saferemail/
And sadly, the growth curve for uptake in the past year appears flat.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2016-01-27 18:45 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2016-01-26 23:16 [Bloat] nearly 5 years of bufferbloat.net Dave Täht
2016-01-27 17:16 ` [Bloat] STARTTLS [was: nearly 5 years of bufferbloat.net] Juliusz Chroboczek
2016-01-27 18:48 ` Dave Täht
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox