<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" standalone="yes"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>MTA-STS on Nalar</title>
    <link>https://nalar.dev/tags/mta-sts/</link>
    <description>Recent content in MTA-STS on Nalar</description>
    <generator>Hugo</generator>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 23 Sep 2026 00:00:00 +0000</lastBuildDate>
    <atom:link href="https://nalar.dev/tags/mta-sts/index.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
    <item>
      <title>MTA-STS Enforces Authenticated TLS for SMTP Delivery</title>
      <link>https://nalar.dev/mta-sts-enforces-authenticated-tls-for-smtp-delivery/</link>
      <pubDate>Wed, 23 Sep 2026 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
      <guid>https://nalar.dev/mta-sts-enforces-authenticated-tls-for-smtp-delivery/</guid>
      <description>&lt;h1 id=&#34;mta-sts-enforces-authenticated-tls-for-smtp-delivery&#34;&gt;MTA-STS Enforces Authenticated TLS for SMTP Delivery&lt;/h1&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;SMTP STARTTLS can encrypt mail transport, but ordinary opportunistic TLS permits delivery to continue when encryption is unavailable. That compatibility behavior leaves room for an active intermediary to suppress STARTTLS or redirect delivery toward an unintended server.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;SMTP MTA Strict Transport Security, defined by RFC 8461, gives a recipient domain a policy channel for conforming sending MTAs. The policy states which MX hosts are acceptable and whether delivery must use TLS with a valid PKIX certificate. In &lt;code&gt;enforce&lt;/code&gt; mode, a sender does not silently downgrade when those checks fail.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>TLS-RPT Exposes SMTP TLS Failures as Aggregate Reports</title>
      <link>https://nalar.dev/tls-rpt-exposes-smtp-tls-failures-as-aggregate-reports/</link>
      <pubDate>Wed, 23 Sep 2026 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
      <guid>https://nalar.dev/tls-rpt-exposes-smtp-tls-failures-as-aggregate-reports/</guid>
      <description>&lt;p&gt;SMTP transport security has an observability problem. A recipient domain can publish an MTA-STS policy or DANE TLSA records, yet many failures occur on remote sending systems: certificate validation can fail, an MX host can become unreachable, STARTTLS negotiation can break, or a published transport policy can be invalid. The recipient needs telemetry from those senders to distinguish a working deployment from a policy that silently blocks delivery.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;SMTP TLS Reporting, commonly called TLS-RPT, defines that telemetry channel in RFC 8460. A recipient domain publishes a DNS TXT record that names one or more report destinations. Participating sending systems then produce aggregate reports describing successful policy-compliant TLS sessions and failures encountered while delivering mail to that domain.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>
