Jeremie Courreges-Anglas writes:
> Claus Assmann writes:
>
>> FYI (I haven't seen this in ports yet):
[...]
>> If sendmail tried to reuse an SMTP session which had already been
>> closed by the server, then the connection cache could have invalid
>> information about the session. One possible c
On 2016/03/10 12:45, Claus Assmann wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 09, 2016, Jeremie Courreges-Anglas wrote:
>
> > Claus, in the future would it be possible to prefix the patch file names
> > with "sendmail-"? It would be a bit safer for us, as we would not have
>
> Do you mean the patch on the sendmail.or
On Wed, Mar 09, 2016, Jeremie Courreges-Anglas wrote:
> Claus, in the future would it be possible to prefix the patch file names
> with "sendmail-"? It would be a bit safer for us, as we would not have
Do you mean the patch on the sendmail.org FTP server? That naming
scheme is used for about 10
Claus Assmann writes:
> FYI (I haven't seen this in ports yet):
Thanks for the heads-up.
> If sendmail tried to reuse an SMTP session which had already been
> closed by the server, then the connection cache could have invalid
> information about the session. One possible consequence was that
>
FYI (I haven't seen this in ports yet):
If sendmail tried to reuse an SMTP session which had already been
closed by the server, then the connection cache could have invalid
information about the session. One possible consequence was that
STARTTLS was not used even if offered.
The problem can be f
