Neohapsis is currently accepting applications for employment. For more information, please visit our website www.neohapsis.com or email firstname.lastname@example.org
From: Victor Duchovni (Victor.DuchovniMorganStanley.com)
Date: Tue Jan 15 2008 - 15:02:27 CST
On Tue, Jan 15, 2008 at 02:34:20PM -0500, Dennis Putnam wrote:
> On Jan 15, 2008, at 2:23 PM, Victor Duchovni wrote:
> >On Tue, Jan 15, 2008 at 01:59:00PM -0500, Dennis Putnam wrote:
> >No, a firewall on *your* exit path to the Internet that is censoring
> No, I control our firewall and there are no restrictions on outbound
> packets with the except of a few web sites (port 80).
Not packet restrictions, protocol rewriting. For example some PIX firewall
"sanitize" SMTP. All the evidence points to such a firewall at your
premises or immediately outside, so don't discount this quite so fast.
> >In any case, clearly 2.1.5 TLS "MUST" is not really
> >functional. If you want a TLS secure-channel (not just
> >opportunistic TLS),
> >use 2.3.13 or 2.4.6.
> Sadly that is not an option. However, even a working opportunistic
> TLS would be satisfactory for now.
In that case, hunt down that firewall, or verify that the receiving
system has not singled out your IP address for denying TLS access.
Disclaimer: off-list followups get on-list replies or get ignored.
Please do not ignore the "Reply-To" header.
To unsubscribe from the postfix-users list, visit
http://www.postfix.org/lists.html or click the link below:
If my response solves your problem, the best way to thank me is to not
send an "it worked, thanks" follow-up. If you must respond, please put
"It worked, thanks" in the "Subject" so I can delete these quickly.