IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: STARTTLS & EHLO

John C Klensin <john+smtp@jck.com> Mon, 26 January 2009 21:25 UTC

Received: from balder-227.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id n0QLPFVJ036593 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 26 Jan 2009 14:25:15 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-smtp@mail.imc.org)
Received: (from majordom@localhost) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.13.5/Submit) id n0QLPFMo036592; Mon, 26 Jan 2009 14:25:15 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-smtp@mail.imc.org)
X-Authentication-Warning: balder-227.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-smtp@mail.imc.org using -f
Received: from bs.jck.com (ns.jck.com [209.187.148.211]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id n0QLP3UF036578 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA bits=168 verify=NO) for <ietf-smtp@imc.org>; Mon, 26 Jan 2009 14:25:14 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from john+smtp@jck.com)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=localhost) by bs.jck.com with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1LRYwy-000In2-Pl; Mon, 26 Jan 2009 16:24:57 -0500
Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2009 16:24:56 -0500
From: John C Klensin <john+smtp@jck.com>
To: Tony Finch <dot@dotat.at>
cc: Tony Hansen <tony@att.com>, ietf-smtp@imc.org
Subject: Re: STARTTLS & EHLO
Message-ID: <47BC778B6268FF3804A56D5B@[192.168.1.118]>
In-Reply-To: <alpine.LSU.2.00.0901261924250.4795@hermes-2.csi.cam.ac.uk>
References: <497DE492.4080506@pscs.co.uk> <497DED29.70402@att.com> <62F21B7FAF870CE227D9F6CC@[192.168.1.118]> <alpine.LSU.2.00.0901261924250.4795@hermes-2.csi.cam.ac.uk>
X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Win32)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Sender: owner-ietf-smtp@mail.imc.org
Precedence: bulk
List-Archive: <http://www.imc.org/ietf-smtp/mail-archive/>
List-ID: <ietf-smtp.imc.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-smtp-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe>

Good.  As I tried to warn, I don't have 3207 in front of me and
don't have easy access to it today.  The text seems just right
to me.

   john


--On Monday, January 26, 2009 7:31 PM +0000 Tony Finch
<dot@dotat.at> wrote:

> On Mon, 26 Jan 2009, John C Klensin wrote:
>> 
>> Right. The quoted 3207 text says to me that the server is
>> required discard the data sent earlier by the client as part
>> of EHLO.  I don't see any expectation that it be required to
>> discard the fact that EHLO was sent.
> 
> The quote is:
>                              The server MUST discard any
> knowledge    obtained from the client, such as the argument to
> the EHLO command,    which was not obtained from the TLS
> negotiation itself.  The client    MUST discard any knowledge
> obtained from the server, such as the list    of SMTP service
> extensions, which was not obtained from the TLS    negotiation
> itself.
> 
> The argument to EHLO is just an example and is clearly not the
> entirety of what the server is supposed to discard.
> 
>> Indeed, unless there is something else in 3207, the client
>> isn't even required to discard the response from EHLO with the
>> server-supported feature list,
> 
> It is required to do so.
> 
> Tony.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email