Re: rfc2487bis-04: Failed negotiations & virtual hosting

At 2:44 PM -0700 10/27/00, Chris Newman wrote:
>--On Tuesday, October 17, 2000 11:01 +0200 Lutz Jaenicke 
><[email protected]> wrote:
>>An "easy" way to do it would be to
>>extend STARTTLS to "STARTTLS required_target", but this would in fact
>>change the protocol.
>
>I'd be amenable to a "MULTIDOMAIN" EHLO keyword, with the following meaning:
>
>(1) If STARTTLS is also advertised, a domain name SHOULD be supplied 
>as an argument to the STARTTLS command.
>(2) If AUTH is also advertised, then usernames of the form 
>"user@domain" are supported and recommended for authentication.
>(3) If neither STARTTLS nor AUTH is advertised, the keyword is ignored.

There was a real discussion about how to deal with a single SMTP 
server serving multiple host names. It was pretty much decided that 
this was a problem for TLS, not for this protocol. Chris sent the 
above proposal, I pointed out that this was a protocol change, and 
the conversation died.

I would like to resolve this soon so that we can finish this 
document. Do people like Chris' suggestion? Should we just ignore the 
problem?

--Paul Hoffman, Director
--Internet Mail Consortium