IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [ietf-smtp] MTA-MTA SMTP and TLS-on-connect

John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> Sun, 26 April 2020 20:37 UTC

Return-Path: <johnl@iecc.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 938973A1141 for <ietf-smtp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 26 Apr 2020 13:37:14 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.85
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.85 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.25, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1536-bit key) header.d=iecc.com header.b=A0gv0kQq; dkim=pass (1536-bit key) header.d=taugh.com header.b=oOIXxK3d
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 T8xpPgrOZIvk for <ietf-smtp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 26 Apr 2020 13:37:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from gal.iecc.com (gal.iecc.com [IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126:0:43:6f73:7461]) (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 A142A3A1148 for <ietf-smtp@ietf.org>; Sun, 26 Apr 2020 13:37:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 77529 invoked from network); 26 Apr 2020 20:37:10 -0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=iecc.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=12ed6.5ea5f0f6.k2004; bh=Efm5tjh27niGadFLhEJxq9VMzE3XjTuHY/RPG7kRL8w=; b=A0gv0kQqzvW3N1alCD5ud/Aiy4DxXEgRxavVJ0aESVSJi448+Adcjwez760EGYFXDs6B4TTq3pCRlXvYu5baj8NJGKFL5k5RBhFK4gVgeaF1WCjh+l8tSXdkjzBjkvY2/gxbRrpsbCusyzCkF06WyywK3FYtOiECbovTag7Du6fRU73KMXig9xrDc81AXn3WNfmjNqupILi3E5/ef7pGXkh75EOtVa4scFGdMvK+sVYyqio7md7B/go4OjnGtOdb
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=taugh.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=12ed6.5ea5f0f6.k2004; bh=Efm5tjh27niGadFLhEJxq9VMzE3XjTuHY/RPG7kRL8w=; b=oOIXxK3dkCjJCxuuMfYGHi5HaguW7AnMURPoCY08d61YBGjMHQr4raeQC6Aea76yPsMeasFHiAutldGL4r+4wHv5d3/GhuV2ttKcng5r0Oz1DZQtaUqgLOqrBsH3hN+EsOoE4lx1dPMSNQ2gceuXGwl8FuPjG5oRIXj/oCtEtJzs9Ms312TtzZC2BLICkgdkjKS7DNUm+pLkqODIBLuI6IIbtdNo9IraG7LQFSxuvntyJdYKQnMzZJkl1YI65eoZ
Received: from ary.qy ([IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126::78:696d:6170]) by imap.iecc.com ([IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126::78:696d:6170]) with ESMTP via TCP6; 26 Apr 2020 20:37:09 -0000
Received: by ary.qy (Postfix, from userid 501) id 8B82D1863B59; Sun, 26 Apr 2020 16:37:19 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Sun, 26 Apr 2020 16:37:19 -0400
Message-Id: <20200426203720.8B82D1863B59@ary.qy>
From: John Levine <johnl@taugh.com>
To: ietf-smtp@ietf.org
Cc: ned.freed@mrochek.com
In-Reply-To: <01RK5KUREEZA000058@mauve.mrochek.com>
Organization: Taughannock Networks
X-Headerized: yes
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-transfer-encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-smtp/AJDLyFTFcHvuqkTQEQw58FTanyM>
Subject: Re: [ietf-smtp] MTA-MTA SMTP and TLS-on-connect
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: Sun, 26 Apr 2020 20:37:15 -0000

In article <01RK5KUREEZA000058@mauve.mrochek.com> you write:
>> should we think about technical means to facilitate the latter?
>
>Absolutely not. Relaying mail is complicated enough already; adding another
>port and DNS lookup to the mix and all the associated failure modes consistutes
>a huge cost with no real benefit.

Agreed, the extra overhead of HELO and STARTTLS is not important, and the net is
already overoptimized for mail on port 25.

I am reasonably sure that if we didn't already have port 465 in
addition to 587, nobody would invent it.

-- 
Regards,
John Levine, johnl@taugh.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies",
Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email