Re: STARTTLS & EHLO

Tony Hansen <tony@att.com> Thu, 29 January 2009 15:10 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 n0TFACv9020204 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 29 Jan 2009 08:10:12 -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 n0TFACGm020203; Thu, 29 Jan 2009 08:10:12 -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 mail167.messagelabs.com (mail167.messagelabs.com [216.82.253.179]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id n0TFA0ws020186 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL) for <ietf-smtp@imc.org>; Thu, 29 Jan 2009 08:10:11 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from tony@att.com)
X-VirusChecked: Checked
X-Env-Sender: tony@att.com
X-Msg-Ref: server-3.tower-167.messagelabs.com!1233241799!11778424!1
X-StarScan-Version: 6.0.0; banners=-,-,-
X-Originating-IP: [144.160.128.141]
Received: (qmail 20795 invoked from network); 29 Jan 2009 15:10:00 -0000
Received: from sbcsmtp9.sbc.com (HELO flph161.enaf.ffdc.sbc.com) (144.160.128.141) by server-3.tower-167.messagelabs.com with AES256-SHA encrypted SMTP; 29 Jan 2009 15:10:00 -0000
Received: from enaf.ffdc.sbc.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by flph161.enaf.ffdc.sbc.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id n0TF9x9T004544 for <ietf-smtp@imc.org>; Thu, 29 Jan 2009 07:09:59 -0800
Received: from klph001.kcdc.att.com (klph001.kcdc.att.com [135.188.3.11]) by flph161.enaf.ffdc.sbc.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id n0TF9tZt004483 for <ietf-smtp@imc.org>; Thu, 29 Jan 2009 07:09:55 -0800
Received: from kcdc.att.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by klph001.kcdc.att.com (8.14.0/8.14.0) with ESMTP id n0TF9tNJ027525 for <ietf-smtp@imc.org>; Thu, 29 Jan 2009 09:09:55 -0600
Received: from maillennium.att.com (mailgw1.maillennium.att.com [135.25.114.99]) by klph001.kcdc.att.com (8.14.0/8.14.0) with ESMTP id n0TF9o8A027442 for <ietf-smtp@imc.org>; Thu, 29 Jan 2009 09:09:50 -0600
Received: from [135.70.181.172] (vpn-135-70-181-172.vpn.mwst.att.com[135.70.181.172](untrusted sender)) by maillennium.att.com (mailgw1) with ESMTP id <20090129150949gw1000u613e> (Authid: tony); Thu, 29 Jan 2009 15:09:50 +0000
Message-ID: <4981C6BD.2040900@att.com>
Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2009 10:09:49 -0500
From: Tony Hansen <tony@att.com>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.19 (Windows/20081209)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: ietf-smtp@imc.org
Subject: Re: STARTTLS & EHLO
References: <497DE492.4080506@pscs.co.uk> <497DED29.70402@att.com> <497ED420.30708@pscs.co.uk> <alpine.LSU.2.00.0901271403220.4546@hermes-2.csi.cam.ac.uk> <497F86CB.60904@att.com> <alpine.LSU.2.00.0901281434440.4546@hermes-2.csi.cam.ac.uk> <498088B8.9040404@pscs.co.uk> <alpine.LSU.2.00.0901291310080.4546@hermes-2.csi.cam.ac.uk> <4981C0D5.1010401@pscs.co.uk>
In-Reply-To: <4981C0D5.1010401@pscs.co.uk>
X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.7
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
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>

If this is the interpretation that we gain consensus on, that it means
"start over from scratch", it might as well also say that it

	SHOULD only be executed immediately after the initial EHLO.

The only possible exceptions to this rule would be for verbs that don't
affect the state machine, such as VRFY, EXPN, HELP, NOOP.

	Tony Hansen
	tony@att.com

Paul Smith wrote:
> Tony Finch wrote:
>> On Wed, 28 Jan 2009, Paul Smith wrote:
>>   
>>> To me, it was (initially) 'clear' that the example saying 'such as the
>>> argument to the EHLO command', was precise enough to imply that the fact
>>> that the EHLO command was sent should not be discarded. It could have
>>> said 'such as the EHLO command', but it went out of its way to say '*the
>>> argument to* the EHLO command'.
>>>     
>>
>> But there's plenty of other information that the server has to discard -
>> for example any AUTH results, any partial MAIL transactions - which isn't
>> explicitly listed in RFC 3207.
>>   
> Yes, but it has an example which was more specific than it needed to be
> if it just meant 'forget that anything ever happened, and start the
> session again from scratch' (other than obviously the fact that STARTTLS
> was sent).
> 
> It's like saying 'cars, such as blue Honda Civics, aren't allowed over
> this bridge'. Does this mean that just blue Honda Civics aren't allowed
> over the bridge, or cars that look like that aren't allowed, or blue
> cars, or Honda Civics, or all Hondas, or all cars? The 'such as blue
> Honda Civics' confuses the statement, rather than clarifying it.
> 
> I'm not arguing what RFC 3207 means, just that I don't think it's as
> clear as it could be.
> 
> -- 
> Paul Smith
> 
> VPOP3 - POP3/SMTP/IMAP4/Webmail Email server for Windows
>