Re: [ietf-smtp] broken signatures, was Curious

e sam <e2009@hey.com> Thu, 23 July 2020 02:37 UTC

Return-Path: <e2009@hey.com>
X-Original-To: ietf-smtp@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf-smtp@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B203B3A0B57 for <ietf-smtp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 22 Jul 2020 19:37:16 -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, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=hey.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 rW4yqtc_rOlD for <ietf-smtp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 22 Jul 2020 19:37:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from 01d.trial.hey.com (01d.trial.hey.com [204.62.114.137]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4951D3A0B59 for <ietf-smtp@ietf.org>; Wed, 22 Jul 2020 19:37:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from hey.com (bigip-vip.rw-ash-int.37signals.com [10.20.0.17]) by 01.trial.hey.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 583AA211DF; Thu, 23 Jul 2020 02:37:12 +0000 (UTC)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 01.trial.hey.com 583AA211DF
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=hey.com; s=heymail; t=1595471833; bh=qVVnLrRTR5WCbJgeccB5i72nhRwDqRzSyqu1HaF9fJY=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:Subject; b=RuubXAZX2qsn+LM74X9Z1eH+8DTCePYmHluJO/V8AggSQ/FgPaS/tgE7WTuATba1G h4XMkZZr16z4udIYSOKddoF3LNl1+y+wuZLkzRxjBu/JtrjcInzFhRMAnRMKVPFyfr 36SEySs4gFZp+IJan7qekb+wCDNCuJM3rkoE1OGDHZ/8nIK/ynVhtjvRwkFA6V2IGK Nr/cl/zP7eZ0HGOcAjXRt0a+izUQjJmHrP8U9waKOWj/WXujC+Ju9YwrwzjXSZ6YQU HxzPnSRmbtXJDL8sqozZvzSI8GNjTQFHBvCXiH7Z2Yz82uHd2dI05do9ONum7+ZAVW sYxjsWOW+QCfQ==
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2020 02:37:12 +0000
From: e sam <e2009@hey.com>
To: e sam <e2009=40hey.com@dmarc.ietf.org>, Michael Richardson <mcr@sandelman.ca>, John Levine <johnl@taugh.com>, dcrocker@bbiw.net
Cc: ietf-smtp <ietf-smtp@ietf.org>
Message-ID: <39264d05839688b1902d0bcb380046a12a28f619@hey.com>
In-Reply-To: <a7d40190-7bb8-4fd7-1717-1c039b08def5@dcrocker.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5f18f7d812fd1_2b562d7869435"; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-smtp/3cnxAIcsZpxDEJcjtvFLvwT9dpU>
Subject: Re: [ietf-smtp] broken signatures, was Curious
X-BeenThere: ietf-smtp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Discussion of issues related to Simple Mail Transfer Protocol \(SMTP\) \[RFC 821, RFC 2821, RFC 5321\]" <ietf-smtp.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf-smtp>, <mailto:ietf-smtp-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf-smtp/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf-smtp@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-smtp-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-smtp>, <mailto:ietf-smtp-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2020 02:37:17 -0000

Dave Crocker <dhc@dcrocker.net> wrote:
“On 7/22/2020 7:05 PM, e sam wrote:
> I'm just talking about if there IS a problem, which I don't know if 
> there is or isn't one..


For an effort of the narrow type intended here, when someone posts about 
a problem, they should include documentation that it is actually a problem.

It's easy to hypothesize about an infinite range of possibilities. It 
takes work to document the realities.

d/

-- 
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net

_______________________________________________
ietf-smtp mailing list
ietf-smtp@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-smtp”

 
I didn't say that there was a problem or not, all I was saying is that I get the feeling that if there was a problem, it is a minor one compared to the other stuff on the EMAILCORE agenda. Other people in this mailing list have already brought up their own problems. In fact, in my first post which sparked all this discussion I just said it was something to consider. If people thought there was a problem, then we could take it further. If there wasn't a problem, then we could leave it at that.

I agree with your last paragraph about the work and documenting it!

Thanks