Any place that has a TLS misconfig will pretty much notice it very quickly indeed Opportunistic just means use TLS if it is advertised as available else continue encrypted. Not sure why encountering a starttls negates it. To the OP - what's the point of hiding the hostname in the smtp banner? You already know from the dns. Concerned about the MTA version? You can configure postfix to claim it is exchange or avian carrier for that matter --srs ________________________________ From: Constantine A. Murenin <mureninc@gmail.com> Sent: Saturday, January 12, 2019 10:08 AM To: Suresh Ramasubramanian Cc: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: SMTP Over TLS on Port 26 - Implicit TLS Proposal [Feedback Request] On Fri, 11 Jan 2019 at 22:00, Suresh Ramasubramanian <ops.lists@gmail.com> wrote:
Most new MTA implementations over the past several years default to TLS with strong ciphers. So how much of a problem is low or no TLS right now?
The real problem is that opportunistic StartTLS stops being opportunistic the minute you encounter a `STARTTLS` extension on `EHLO`. At that point and henceforth, TLS is pretty much 100% mandatory. What happens if there are SSL negotiation failures? I'll tell you what happens — the sender will receive a few bounces, X hours and Y days after sending the mail; recipient doesn't receive anything at all. (Unless, of course, one of the administrators would magically decide to change the SSL options in the meantime to be compatible, or to disable the "opportunistic" StartTLS to start with, before the final bounce gets generated by the MTA of the sender.) These problems are real. They're already happening today. StartTLS being "opportunistic" is a pretty big scam. C.