Skip to content

docs(installation): mail client autoconfiguration - #227

Merged
0kaba0hub merged 1 commit into
mainfrom
docs/mail-client-autoconfig
Oct 24, 2026
Merged

0kaba0hub merged 1 commit into
mainfrom
docs/mail-client-autoconfig

Conversation

@0kaba0hub

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

New page installation/autoconfig for yarilo-autoconfig (now a public repository): which clients configure themselves and which need manual setup, why the autoconfig host follows the MX name, deploying the chart, its values, the DNS records a mail domain publishes (with the autodiscover.<domain> trap), and how to verify.

  • installation/dns: the autodiscovery SRV set now has _submissions._tcp 465 at priority 0 and _submission._tcp 587 at priority 10 (RFC 8314: implicit TLS preferred), plus _autodiscover._tcp; links the new page.
  • reference/rfcs: new section "Client autoconfiguration" (RFC 6186 yes, RFC 6764 no) and the two vendor formats.
  • Sidebar entry under Installation.

The service's values are a plain table, not data/settings.yaml entries: those are checked against yarilo's own settings export and chart, which do not contain this service.

@0kaba0

0kaba0 commented Oct 24, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

APPROVED at 0051190. The page says what an operator needs in the order they need it: which clients self-configure, why the host follows the MX, the install command with both hosts, the values, the customer's records with the autodiscover.<domain> trap and the expected Outlook prompt, and a verification that includes the record that must be absent. The DNS page now orders submission by RFC 8314 and the RFC page has the autoconfiguration section with 6186 yes and 6764 no. A plain table for this service's values is the right call: data/settings.yaml is checked against yarilo's own export. Build green.

@0kaba0hub
0kaba0hub merged commit c037bbe into main Oct 24, 2026
1 check passed
@0kaba0hub
0kaba0hub deleted the docs/mail-client-autoconfig branch October 24, 2026 22:06
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants