IETF Logo Mail Archive

[Extra] A STARTTLS received after a successful STARTTLS

Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com> Tue, 27 October 2020 10:18 UTC

Return-Path: <alexey.melnikov@isode.com>
X-Original-To: extra@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: extra@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 85A043A16B9 for <extra@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 27 Oct 2020 03:18:38 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.099
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.099 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=isode.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id lHpUihNx_-RH for <extra@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 27 Oct 2020 03:18:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from waldorf.isode.com (waldorf.isode.com [62.232.206.188]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8D7433A16B0 for <extra@ietf.org>; Tue, 27 Oct 2020 03:18:37 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; t=1603793916; d=isode.com; s=june2016; i=@isode.com; bh=dS8asGZaJ5sV0/kjOtnqYwvJs6Mroazvyo+w8VRnZYw=; h=From:Sender:Reply-To:Subject:Date:Message-ID:To:Cc:MIME-Version: In-Reply-To:References:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding: Content-ID:Content-Description; b=qcTWSNJSuMliWD8AX8sPRl8iYCgVw3DywUqVS4VcvFmvGEms6iicL63UYmSV9DylucplLO YyfsshsJMq1VsEAqu6VlRXPwuPmJhIjBhWuJpgLaZlcn7SpRX31tKA2oEcjdT7K+svxclB NXIhT7gBWKeDCUlF9xn1f4V2NwndYHw=;
Received: from [192.168.0.5] (97e7601a.skybroadband.com [151.231.96.26]) by waldorf.isode.com (submission channel) via TCP with ESMTPSA id <X5fz=AAF1iMz@waldorf.isode.com>; Tue, 27 Oct 2020 10:18:36 +0000
To: extra@ietf.org
From: Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com>
Message-ID: <4e10b4fc-d162-eaa0-086b-40585195f296@isode.com>
Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2020 10:18:35 +0000
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.12.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Language: en-GB
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/extra/LPTbTIMetW8MrGMjFMeXBr56FFM>
Subject: [Extra] A STARTTLS received after a successful STARTTLS
X-BeenThere: extra@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Email mailstore and eXtensions To Revise or Amend <extra.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/extra>, <mailto:extra-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/extra/>
List-Post: <mailto:extra@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:extra-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/extra>, <mailto:extra-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2020 10:18:38 -0000

Hi all,

A STARTTLS command received after a successfully executed STARTTLS must 
fail. Do people send BAD or NO in this case? I think IMAP4rev2 should 
recommend BAD tagged response, but I would like to know if 
implementations differ in this respect.

Best Regards,

Alexey

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email