Re: [ietf-smtp] EHLO domain validation requirement in RFC 5321
Keith Moore <moore@network-heretics.com> Mon, 28 September 2020 13:26 UTC
Return-Path: <moore@network-heretics.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 DD5593A0ED6
for <ietf-smtp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 28 Sep 2020 06:26:44 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.108
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.108 tagged_above=-999 required=5
tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1,
HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.213, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001,
RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001]
autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
header.d=messagingengine.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 3il01ebmF2HP for <ietf-smtp@ietfa.amsl.com>;
Mon, 28 Sep 2020 06:26:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from out4-smtp.messagingengine.com (out4-smtp.messagingengine.com
[66.111.4.28])
(using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))
(No client certificate requested)
by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2EEFC3A0ECF
for <ietf-smtp@ietf.org>; Mon, 28 Sep 2020 06:26:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from compute4.internal (compute4.nyi.internal [10.202.2.44])
by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2CFC85C0053
for <ietf-smtp@ietf.org>; Mon, 28 Sep 2020 09:26:42 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from mailfrontend2 ([10.202.2.163])
by compute4.internal (MEProxy); Mon, 28 Sep 2020 09:26:42 -0400
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=
messagingengine.com; h=content-type:date:from:in-reply-to
:message-id:mime-version:references:subject:to:x-me-proxy
:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm3; bh=XTX41e
Io/w/7OH8nYXW1x+NEPowcmF7fv1d0xwnfGXE=; b=vhpOdQIkbFvTp3MwWZo0gp
1xz48IGVhhfIUZ4DkzGBF1MveZJCsxDXnnlOuyAjtWEg6hSUMsTcUkIuZnMpOfzg
SHpnk0zygnzq6oH5DE9B+j3C3Q6xINoDnZ7DVL7zvotzG4Je4igvLG8/mK+c/SS5
jJzQKwFqbr9zFtXgNvfeaRKqTvxVUOAVJ4KIicdco5xO0oJpyQtY8l2mMs2S/NIS
qcmbJI/8QXioK9e5WcZ+eazjyXsMeQZCRwNYZerilyIeqYILckqRYFqFD8oEs3hA
NZoK0VxjjZLNyMJvRQNFQHLQ8Uws+YVM75qzwrFCIfa6TuF3FRSsGSBPzlp6JEgg
==
X-ME-Sender: <xms:keRxX3w0dXIPdwOo-YXd0iJPospddpuF1Ss3WPFMfy7xnIOr2xJocQ>
<xme:keRxX_TcVDu3A_KGpuMcKVZxnnVfXeiovBEa10Sz8tiptAMqDYR0GW-HG1IOTEIFK
InfWuEtOMtyzg>
X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedujedrvdeigdeggecutefuodetggdotefrodftvf
curfhrohhfihhlvgemucfhrghsthforghilhdpqfgfvfdpuffrtefokffrpgfnqfghnecu
uegrihhlohhuthemuceftddtnecunecujfgurhepuffvfhfhkffffgggjggtsegrtderre
dtfeejnecuhfhrohhmpefmvghithhhucfoohhorhgvuceomhhoohhrvgesnhgvthifohhr
khdqhhgvrhgvthhitghsrdgtohhmqeenucggtffrrghtthgvrhhnpeevfeetudeigedtle
dvvddtudefjeejffdvfeetjeeiueelgfdtgfegtdffkeetudenucfkphepuddtkedrvddv
uddrudektddrudehnecuvehluhhsthgvrhfuihiivgeptdenucfrrghrrghmpehmrghilh
hfrhhomhepmhhoohhrvgesnhgvthifohhrkhdqhhgvrhgvthhitghsrdgtohhm
X-ME-Proxy: <xmx:keRxXxWk9cGtip4f7LZel7VQF6U5Iea79RuoR3eMhArAZODI6cZ_sg>
<xmx:keRxXxgnQQX_gbyw1WU8Qjq-3ck3cdrFSX0KSUD7rpKtsRFGRQ7sfA>
<xmx:keRxX5D5QNx9EP8q0O2FKOC5uWHI5raezwgdg28AApENO9Mp6Y1qCA>
<xmx:kuRxX1wrInIm1k9dWqv-lyfkCNyLNBRN4x1mLrSZZXUkWyDA32WbZQ>
Received: from [192.168.1.85] (108-221-180-15.lightspeed.knvltn.sbcglobal.net
[108.221.180.15])
by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 9D4DC3064610
for <ietf-smtp@ietf.org>; Mon, 28 Sep 2020 09:26:41 -0400 (EDT)
To: ietf-smtp@ietf.org
References: <cone.1601250950.437858.35945.1004@monster.email-scan.com>
<ac132a1a-ec83-1ec6-dd34-85fd3bba95c5@network-heretics.com>
<cone.1601252021.530626.35945.1004@monster.email-scan.com>
<6330c607-5ede-4766-1823-5c8be8a9097b@network-heretics.com>
<s1Gob6BEOTcfFAg3@highwayman.com>
<3b1279c2-ce25-2c74-cfe4-89fe31075c06@network-heretics.com>
<cone.1601257917.859397.35945.1004@monster.email-scan.com>
<e37088fc-ccad-1a4b-7216-a7c11a365e0b@network-heretics.com>
<399AEACC-81F0-4355-AB98-74896A772147@wordtothewise.com>
<7df1611b-e664-131d-376d-1cab87ad6409@network-heretics.com>
<F2BFE794-A258-4617-93BC-56ECE582CCE7@wordtothewise.com>
<aff3fde6-f120-1fb7-f8fb-eec8e16ac86e@network-heretics.com>
<FB243215-59BA-424F-9E31-2954561E22E8@wordtothewise.com>
From: Keith Moore <moore@network-heretics.com>
Message-ID: <acc2e690-dff0-02c3-33f3-780d071df695@network-heretics.com>
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 2020 09:26:40 -0400
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/68.10.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <FB243215-59BA-424F-9E31-2954561E22E8@wordtothewise.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="------------610533B27B3614B38190B4A4"
Content-Language: en-US
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-smtp/6oWFm_VDFWZrEuIzmf3IVK_vaxk>
Subject: Re: [ietf-smtp] EHLO domain validation requirement in RFC 5321
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: Mon, 28 Sep 2020 13:26:45 -0000
On 9/28/20 9:10 AM, Laura Atkins wrote: >> I've made those arguments multiple times already. "evidence" seems >> like the wrong thing to ask for because this is really a question of >> /design/ - what choices should be made to allow the email network to >> continue operating seamlessly and efficiently in the event of >> widespread use of NAT within the network (either to gateway between >> IPv4 and IPv6 or to economize use of IPv4 space)? >> > I’ve seen lots of arguments, yes, but I’ve not seen any real evidence > backing up your assertions. Most of this is what I've picked up reading IETF lists and trade publications for years. I guess I thought it was common knowledge within IETF that NATs were increasingly being used in these ways - certainly there were many discussions about it in IETF several years ago. > I’m trying to better understand your point of view and understand why > this is so important. But it’s been hard to find that in the sniping. > > The design question is one that should be discussed, but is this the > correct space for that? Arguably the discussion should be taking place on the emailcore WG mailing list rather than here. But we started the discussion here. >> The changes I see happening include the increasing scarcity of IPv4 >> address space and the consequent emergence of IPv6-only network >> providers using NAT to move packets between IPv4 and IPv6 addressing >> domains. I'm also anticipating the need to eventually phase out the >> public IPv4 Internet altogether. >> > Or we could write the BIS to recommend anyone running v4 services also > provide v6 services, couldn’t we? Take the burden off the v6 only > systems which are likely newer entrants and put it on the ‘old timers’ > who’ve been around for decades. We could make such a recommendation. Though I expect, that like spam filterers, network operators will do what they want, and consider themselves justified in doing so, regardless of what we recommend. I suspect that the task before us is to make recommendations that both spam filterers and network operators will find palatable. >> (From operators' perspective: how long does it make sense for every >> network to maintain its IPv4 baggage, just so that email won't be >> blocked? At the very least we need input from network operators.) >> > My experience is that folks running MTAs on IPv6 actually enact > stricter technical requirements on those systems. For instance, many > IPv4 servers will accept mail without valid rDNS on the sending IP or > will accept mail without SPF records, while the IPv6 servers run by > the same entities require those things directly. It might even make sense for IPv6 operations to "raise the bar". For example, PTR lookup of IPv6 addresses allows finer-grained delegation than PTR lookup of IPv4 addresses. But regardless of what some operators are doing, I think this requires careful analysis to justify from a standards perspective. I suspect there will be IPv4-only networks with a legitimate need to originate mail to IPv6-only servers. Keith
- [ietf-smtp] EHLO domain validation requirement in… Sam Varshavchik
- Re: [ietf-smtp] EHLO domain validation requiremen… Keith Moore
- Re: [ietf-smtp] EHLO domain validation requiremen… Keith Moore
- Re: [ietf-smtp] EHLO domain validation requiremen… John Levine
- Re: [ietf-smtp] EHLO domain validation requiremen… Keith Moore
- Re: [ietf-smtp] EHLO domain validation requiremen… Sam Varshavchik
- Re: [ietf-smtp] EHLO domain validation requiremen… Sam Varshavchik
- Re: [ietf-smtp] EHLO domain validation requiremen… John R Levine
- Re: [ietf-smtp] EHLO domain validation requiremen… John C Klensin
- Re: [ietf-smtp] EHLO domain validation requiremen… Keith Moore
- Re: [ietf-smtp] EHLO domain validation requiremen… John R Levine
- Re: [ietf-smtp] EHLO domain validation requiremen… Keith Moore
- Re: [ietf-smtp] EHLO domain validation requiremen… Dave Crocker
- Re: [ietf-smtp] EHLO domain validation requiremen… Dave Crocker
- Re: [ietf-smtp] EHLO domain validation requiremen… Russ Allbery
- Re: [ietf-smtp] EHLO domain validation requiremen… John C Klensin
- Re: [ietf-smtp] EHLO domain validation requiremen… Keith Moore
- Re: [ietf-smtp] EHLO domain validation requiremen… Keith Moore
- Re: [ietf-smtp] EHLO domain validation requiremen… Keith Moore
- Re: [ietf-smtp] EHLO domain validation requiremen… Dave Crocker
- Re: [ietf-smtp] EHLO domain validation requiremen… Dave Crocker
- Re: [ietf-smtp] EHLO domain validation requiremen… Keith Moore
- Re: [ietf-smtp] EHLO domain validation requiremen… John R Levine
- Re: [ietf-smtp] EHLO domain validation requiremen… Ned Freed
- Re: [ietf-smtp] EHLO domain validation requiremen… John R Levine
- Re: [ietf-smtp] EHLO domain validation requiremen… Keith Moore
- Re: [ietf-smtp] EHLO domain validation requiremen… Dave Crocker
- Re: [ietf-smtp] EHLO domain validation requiremen… Sam Varshavchik
- Re: [ietf-smtp] EHLO domain validation requiremen… Claus Assmann
- Re: [ietf-smtp] EHLO domain validation requiremen… Keith Moore
- Re: [ietf-smtp] EHLO domain validation requiremen… Dave Crocker
- Re: [ietf-smtp] EHLO domain validation requiremen… Keith Moore
- Re: [ietf-smtp] EHLO domain validation requiremen… Sam Varshavchik
- Re: [ietf-smtp] EHLO domain validation requiremen… Keith Moore
- Re: [ietf-smtp] EHLO domain validation requiremen… Sam Varshavchik
- Re: [ietf-smtp] EHLO domain validation requiremen… Dave Crocker
- Re: [ietf-smtp] EHLO domain validation requiremen… Keith Moore
- Re: [ietf-smtp] EHLO domain validation requiremen… Keith Moore
- Re: [ietf-smtp] EHLO domain validation requiremen… John Levine
- Re: [ietf-smtp] EHLO domain validation requiremen… Keith Moore
- Re: [ietf-smtp] EHLO domain validation requiremen… Richard Clayton
- Re: [ietf-smtp] EHLO domain validation requiremen… Dave Crocker
- Re: [ietf-smtp] EHLO domain validation requiremen… Dave Crocker
- Re: [ietf-smtp] EHLO domain validation requiremen… Keith Moore
- Re: [ietf-smtp] EHLO domain validation requiremen… Sam Varshavchik
- Re: [ietf-smtp] EHLO domain validation requiremen… Keith Moore
- Re: [ietf-smtp] EHLO domain validation requiremen… Laura Atkins
- Re: [ietf-smtp] EHLO domain validation requiremen… Keith Moore
- Re: [ietf-smtp] EHLO domain validation requiremen… Laura Atkins
- Re: [ietf-smtp] EHLO domain validation requiremen… Keith Moore
- Re: [ietf-smtp] EHLO domain validation requiremen… Laura Atkins
- Re: [ietf-smtp] EHLO domain validation requiremen… Keith Moore
- Re: [ietf-smtp] EHLO domain validation requiremen… Laura Atkins
- Re: [ietf-smtp] EHLO domain validation requiremen… John Levine
- Re: [ietf-smtp] EHLO domain validation requiremen… Arnt Gulbrandsen
- Re: [ietf-smtp] EHLO domain validation requiremen… Keith Moore
- Re: [ietf-smtp] EHLO domain validation requiremen… Keith Moore
- Re: [ietf-smtp] EHLO domain validation requiremen… John Levine
- Re: [ietf-smtp] EHLO domain validation requiremen… Keith Moore
- Re: [ietf-smtp] EHLO domain validation requiremen… John R Levine
- Re: [ietf-smtp] EHLO domain validation requiremen… John R Levine
- Re: [ietf-smtp] EHLO domain validation requiremen… Mark Andrews
- Re: [ietf-smtp] EHLO domain validation requiremen… Mark Andrews
- Re: [ietf-smtp] EHLO domain validation requiremen… John R Levine
- Re: [ietf-smtp] EHLO domain validation requiremen… Keith Moore
- Re: [ietf-smtp] EHLO domain validation requiremen… Arnt Gulbrandsen
- Re: [ietf-smtp] EHLO domain validation requiremen… Sam Varshavchik
- Re: [ietf-smtp] EHLO domain validation requiremen… Richard Clayton
- Re: [ietf-smtp] EHLO domain validation requiremen… Keith Moore
- Re: [ietf-smtp] EHLO domain validation requiremen… Dave Crocker
- Re: [ietf-smtp] EHLO domain validation requiremen… Keith Moore
- Re: [ietf-smtp] EHLO domain validation requiremen… Keith Moore
- Re: [ietf-smtp] EHLO domain validation requiremen… Dave Crocker
- Re: [ietf-smtp] EHLO domain validation requiremen… Keith Moore
- Re: [ietf-smtp] EHLO domain validation requiremen… John Levine
- Re: [ietf-smtp] EHLO domain validation requiremen… Richard Clayton
- Re: [ietf-smtp] EHLO domain validation requiremen… Keith Moore
- Re: [ietf-smtp] EHLO domain validation requiremen… John Levine
- Re: [ietf-smtp] EHLO domain validation requiremen… Keith Moore
- Re: [ietf-smtp] EHLO domain validation requiremen… Sam Varshavchik
- Re: [ietf-smtp] EHLO domain validation requiremen… Keith Moore
- Re: [ietf-smtp] EHLO domain validation requiremen… Sam Varshavchik
- Re: [ietf-smtp] EHLO domain validation requiremen… Keith Moore
- Re: [ietf-smtp] EHLO domain validation requiremen… Sam Varshavchik
- Re: [ietf-smtp] EHLO domain validation requiremen… Keith Moore
- Re: [ietf-smtp] EHLO domain validation requiremen… Sam Varshavchik
- Re: [ietf-smtp] EHLO domain validation requiremen… Keith Moore
- Re: [ietf-smtp] EHLO domain validation requiremen… Alessandro Vesely
- Re: [ietf-smtp] own mail server: DNS / static IP … Claus Assmann
- Re: [ietf-smtp] own mail server: DNS / static IP … John Levine
- Re: [ietf-smtp] own mail server: DNS / static IP … Claus Assmann
- Re: [ietf-smtp] own mail server: DNS / static IP … Sam Varshavchik
- Re: [ietf-smtp] own mail server: DNS / static IP … Claus Assmann
- Re: [ietf-smtp] own mail server: DNS / static IP … Arnt Gulbrandsen
- Re: [ietf-smtp] own mail server: DNS / static IP … Ned Freed
- Re: [ietf-smtp] own mail server: DNS / static IP … John Levine
- Re: [ietf-smtp] own mail server: DNS / static IP … John Levine
- Re: [ietf-smtp] own mail server: DNS / static IP … Ned Freed
- Re: [ietf-smtp] own mail server: DNS / static IP … John R Levine
- Re: [ietf-smtp] own mail server: DNS / static IP … Ned Freed
- Re: [ietf-smtp] own mail server: DNS / static IP … Dave Crocker
- Re: [ietf-smtp] own mail server: DNS / static IP … John R Levine
- Re: [ietf-smtp] own mail server: DNS / static IP … Evert Mouw
- Re: [ietf-smtp] own mail server: DNS / static IP … Sam Varshavchik
- Re: [ietf-smtp] own mail server: DNS / static IP … Claus Assmann
- Re: [ietf-smtp] own mail server: DNS / static IP … Laura Atkins
- Re: [ietf-smtp] own mail server: DNS / static IP … Sam Varshavchik