IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Viruthagiri Thirumavalavan <giri@dombox.org> Mon, 07 October 2019 20:37 UTC

Return-Path: <giri@dombox.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 D4C3F1208CF for <ietf-smtp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 7 Oct 2019 13:37:47 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=dombox.org
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 1JIwEaEBQlMZ for <ietf-smtp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 7 Oct 2019 13:37:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pf1-x432.google.com (mail-pf1-x432.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::432]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 88CB51201EA for <ietf-smtp@ietf.org>; Mon, 7 Oct 2019 13:37:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pf1-x432.google.com with SMTP id y5so9397786pfo.4 for <ietf-smtp@ietf.org>; Mon, 07 Oct 2019 13:37:45 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=dombox.org; s=default; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=1ED/Ja3AswLJPW5uZb5krkLmmnBJJXQTCdWZtD7CHrg=; b=Z9ZrtaLr6U5Q2O0qLHDWLrzT/mxXbu1E/9Ga05b5aDi2ZgK2tl9auuaBxOHGTPn2WJ Z3DMDFoOSnZ6WWmtIyKBsTHc9m0bLPw9H7dwmwr7H3hcqGjq8O+2j9EfOipVhaa1mYHt NS0+0GAhuVAilc2nsuQ1SdwFuXRkKUTfm0c6HbhVbhGES2wVFqI5sPcPWmIc96XV2Noi HLegt53bFI4SsJysJI69pDF6bJ3X/TLtGm1QD5RQU0ctJc5nIy3zPhIocbvvXgFE4CBj ELOcRmkt8654II07PCt9vlJAzgKywb+IP2ckraIY1hhuVy6e4Udt7YtrK+kNMUABL5JL Q5bg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=1ED/Ja3AswLJPW5uZb5krkLmmnBJJXQTCdWZtD7CHrg=; b=fdXLV/kAc5IIuC6V0MdSaOz+1D0a7b1GS4rXZF22dnjWSEr6rm/zsTz9Fbc6GQQ8zZ J+5DvokALcL7fU4CrlUSOFwvgNrPm4TggLWmBdZIwkc2OrrL99xGGIjugiSHYTPiEq8L NKuN6A5eafmsEobBhmnYKnuPxSVGk7Rw1v6N75oFRM7eH7A3BA35U0LLy/Nx8Hh4D662 2Z0p5nLfR6mxL+nWTRDtbOErldIOz+B718PNDYjjFvJJLoGp42m35KfaoYrYBriQrZ5Q 2O87HYOa2jtL7DN0x4WnCqxQmCJ3VLyn5Q2fsLOyO9etJ2N6SBaV+z6NJ6vS/zEIyHSv VdUQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAXAG3X716nQ1dKWgXNd1fIeFqu0Cc5zARhu9PtDLf5hjbR6wchY 9PsM9HgSO7Ar8ThcIU9QA0+VMVrq82GE0ES9KAz0rQ==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqwh2KnepPuVsGx6ZL9e7kuKhsQzCoy7DNBh6FCSfZ+Tw892JKPS27TshZK7PJQs9OsargDVS6jP/CjcTU5o2qg=
X-Received: by 2002:a63:1a53:: with SMTP id a19mr32468257pgm.58.1570480664816; Mon, 07 Oct 2019 13:37:44 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20191007162824.64ED8BB6CA1@ary.qy> <53D231EA-D749-4437-9759-6F1B3ECC6142@network-heretics.com> <alpine.OSX.2.21.99999.368.1910071506250.38715@ary.qy>
In-Reply-To: <alpine.OSX.2.21.99999.368.1910071506250.38715@ary.qy>
From: Viruthagiri Thirumavalavan <giri@dombox.org>
Date: Tue, 08 Oct 2019 02:07:17 +0530
Message-ID: <CAOEezJQt-6GNJ08MsZ5PUOBD6mf9CBXc8duu7xVLDxirzeqauQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: John R Levine <johnl@taugh.com>
Cc: Keith Moore <moore@network-heretics.com>, SMTP Discuss <ietf-smtp@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000002747bd059458062f"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-smtp/7SrP8CSwhZwO45zWOuqrpCCguDg>
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: Mon, 07 Oct 2019 20:37:54 -0000

>
> If you can figure out a backward compatible way for authoritative DNS
> servers to signal that they support DoT without a lot of performance loss
> (e.g., a failed probe to port 853 on every query to a non-DoT server), a
> lot of people over in dnsop would like to hear about it.


How about adding a prefix or label just like our solution for the
authoritative DNS servers that support DoT?

ns1.example.com  =>  dot-ns1.example.com OR _dot.ns1.example.com

On Tue, Oct 8, 2019 at 12:38 AM John R Levine <johnl@taugh.com> wrote:

> On Mon, 7 Oct 2019, Keith Moore wrote:
> >> There's been some discussion about how an authoritative server
> >> might signal that it accepts DoT but it hasn't gotten very far.
> >
> > Well, maybe this use case will provide an incentive for someone to do
> the remaining work.
>
> If you can figure out a backward compatible way for authoritative DNS
> servers to signal that they support DoT without a lot of performance loss
> (e.g., a failed probe to port 853 on every query to a non-DoT server), a
> lot of people over in dnsop would like to hear about it.
>
> Regards,
> John Levine, johnl@taugh.com, Taughannock Networks, Trumansburg NY
> Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly
>
> _______________________________________________
> ietf-smtp mailing list
> ietf-smtp@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-smtp
>


-- 
Best Regards,

Viruthagiri Thirumavalavan
Dombox, Inc.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email