IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [ietf-smtp] why are we reinventing mta-sts ?

Rich Kulawiec <rsk@gsp.org> Tue, 08 October 2019 00:24 UTC

Return-Path: <rsk@gsp.org>
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 23654120025 for <ietf-smtp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 7 Oct 2019 17:24:24 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 HVl1EWzULec3 for <ietf-smtp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 7 Oct 2019 17:24:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from taos.firemountain.net (taos.firemountain.net [207.114.3.54]) (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 80466120019 for <ietf-smtp@ietf.org>; Mon, 7 Oct 2019 17:24:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from gsp.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by taos.firemountain.net (8.15.1/8.14.9) with SMTP id x980OOF4021481 for <ietf-smtp@ietf.org>; Mon, 7 Oct 2019 20:24:25 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Mon, 07 Oct 2019 20:24:20 -0400
From: Rich Kulawiec <rsk@gsp.org>
To: SMTP Discuss <ietf-smtp@ietf.org>
Message-ID: <20191008002420.GA20713@gsp.org>
References: <20191007002348.GA23742@x2.esmtp.org> <20191007015616.BE113BB3D68@ary.qy> <CANtKdUeC0NVfvVpbHtwd=OoO=BoT8KNWVx8BGF-GPZPU-zo6QA@mail.gmail.com> <CAOEezJTH4Jukz2J4jSDfixECg2Jyyk4+cDnasiAoa4Q2F9=ZZw@mail.gmail.com> <b0dae4ca6e95dc83ca70f71ad780a1432273bcf5.camel@aegee.org> <CAOEezJRXUZkPoJn_kV92q=OQoUs32VzTR5a0JeAKg6NYBW55=Q@mail.gmail.com> <19705.1570469430@turing-police> <f7b9f700-7303-449d-8212-147f29d0bdfd@www.fastmail.com> <CANtKdUcmJDJMm0Vaet23pKBr=yL-jkWXhhr7NtwFvPiJgGwvig@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CANtKdUcmJDJMm0Vaet23pKBr=yL-jkWXhhr7NtwFvPiJgGwvig@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-smtp/40VfnbRTcvQLuotRmM6urEnOaWA>
Subject: Re: [ietf-smtp] why are we reinventing mta-sts ?
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: Tue, 08 Oct 2019 00:24:24 -0000

On Mon, Oct 07, 2019 at 10:04:16PM +0200, Daniel Margolis wrote:
> Depending on the level of automation, I think the extra effort required by
> MTA-STS ranges from "none" to, unfortunately, "some." But I don't fully
> understand the scenario where it's a significant economic burden beyond the
> basic cost of hosting an MTA. Can someone help explain this better?

Every supported service requires resources: personnel, expertise,
monitoring, disk, CPU, memory, bandwidth, security, etc.  Every
supported service increases the attack surface and thus increases
the aggregate risk.  In some environments, not only is all of this
expensive but it's administratively quite difficult.

---rsk

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email