Re: rfc2487bis-04: Failed negotiations & virtual hosting

[Lutz Jaenicke <Lutz.Jaenicke@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Mon, Feb 19, 2001 at 02:29:50PM -0800, Paul Hoffman / IMC wrote:
> At 2:44 PM -0700 10/27/00, Chris Newman wrote:
> >--On Tuesday, October 17, 2000 11:01 +0200 Lutz Jaenicke 
> ><Lutz.Jaenicke@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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?

In other protocols like HTTP the use of dNSName in subjectAltName
in the certificates has been selected to solve the problem of hosting
virtual domains. SMTP should follow this way.

Best regards,
	Lutz
-- 
Lutz Jaenicke                             Lutz.Jaenicke@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
BTU Cottbus               http://www.aet.TU-Cottbus.DE/personen/jaenicke/
Lehrstuhl Allgemeine Elektrotechnik                  Tel. +49 355 69-4129
Universitaetsplatz 3-4, D-03044 Cottbus              Fax. +49 355 69-4153