IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [ietf-smtp] Possible contribution to moving forward with RFC5321bis SMTP

Keith Moore <moore@network-heretics.com> Thu, 02 January 2020 17:14 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 F33A81200FF for <ietf-smtp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 2 Jan 2020 09:14:20 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_NONE=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 EBtvDvkIbJY2 for <ietf-smtp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 2 Jan 2020 09:14:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: from wout2-smtp.messagingengine.com (wout2-smtp.messagingengine.com [64.147.123.25]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AE73D120045 for <ietf-smtp@ietf.org>; Thu, 2 Jan 2020 09:14:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: from compute6.internal (compute6.nyi.internal [10.202.2.46]) by mailout.west.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id BC1075D5; Thu, 2 Jan 2020 12:14:15 -0500 (EST)
Received: from mailfrontend2 ([10.202.2.163]) by compute6.internal (MEProxy); Thu, 02 Jan 2020 12:14:15 -0500
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=content-transfer-encoding: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=fm1; bh=NyAigvN/XeZEHQVrBIbW+CJSeWYD7R0vXDvCS1u7K wI=; b=wnSCEncJcbPRpyhfP+xXRxe+YeSsSkljv7cYuxLJH/Zx3bvHcfRuOWrvy ZGYVWEVOQkJDOS2nhLJHLOJpSdXVSo7MazYjfiby4gGuZvO9i51rDV8fkKx9g7jF nQ15zCeeZteZG4ErBjhH7oIL2XF3lBBxO8K1+tktH7cp+YVOs1Jk+bYMeV2wL30W 7Xrj/LEyMwvYrJoBnD8qjfjUUAY2egNTgOuvni3uQnsmsNMhsAFWMVvKGyE7OTrD 90TE4vDjY5ZbW/j4oLGHak9qleqK0PrcTvr2v55txhRnzd45C8VJtoPwtjiJ3kcb +7le0Eg0b4x9/SGxkUKqaq/I8iKRw==
X-ME-Sender: <xms:5iQOXt4KdTkjdFKXUUWOYlxJ5COwP8bEzLmR5KO66At9ebS7nykYJQ>
X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedufedrvdeguddgleelucetufdoteggodetrfdotf fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfqfgfvpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgen uceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucenucfjughrpefuvfhfhffkffgfgggjtgfgsehtke ertddtfeejnecuhfhrohhmpefmvghithhhucfoohhorhgvuceomhhoohhrvgesnhgvthif ohhrkhdqhhgvrhgvthhitghsrdgtohhmqeenucfkphepuddtkedrvddvuddrudektddrud ehnecurfgrrhgrmhepmhgrihhlfhhrohhmpehmohhorhgvsehnvghtfihorhhkqdhhvghr vghtihgtshdrtghomhenucevlhhushhtvghrufhiiigvpedt
X-ME-Proxy: <xmx:5iQOXlx8plNtGlj0RVrsGz0Kah3aY4ifL7cvDCS_3jxs1rVme1SMCw> <xmx:5iQOXlZ7dQx-t5aWKozywQ9HsO8AL02vxjUcKA5NzTmuUj_BFBkNnQ> <xmx:5iQOXtIl8xxQSQ3ocUDnM5il5qTHtjrT_43eEU0GVkEk53ZEMgacjw> <xmx:5yQOXi164rAiIA9oXX7812_01MJlKMCLZqzim0DL_BBMdDkMTYCv1A>
Received: from [192.168.1.97] (108-221-180-15.lightspeed.knvltn.sbcglobal.net [108.221.180.15]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id EDABB30607B4; Thu, 2 Jan 2020 12:14:13 -0500 (EST)
To: ietf-smtp@ietf.org
References: <20200101175510.8549A11E2905@ary.qy> <D441E0BE-1F32-4329-9296-A5026540E8D0@dukhovni.org> <994e7a23-9e80-4751-6067-8863ad0ee72f@network-heretics.com> <2Iq+URBKeODeFANB@highwayman.com> <5E0E04AA.5070408@isdg.net>
From: Keith Moore <moore@network-heretics.com>
Message-ID: <986919d8-613b-7e13-c39b-0f7f978ca763@network-heretics.com>
Date: Thu, 02 Jan 2020 12:14:13 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.9.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <5E0E04AA.5070408@isdg.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Language: en-US
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-smtp/AQ8raPof13w7ZhdHbHpobBI5aMc>
Subject: Re: [ietf-smtp] Possible contribution to moving forward with RFC5321bis SMTP
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: Thu, 02 Jan 2020 17:14:21 -0000

On 1/2/20 9:56 AM, Hector Santos wrote:

> If some local sites decide to reject IP-literals based on decision 
> that contains bias so be it, they will deal with the false positives, 
> but it is not SMTP.

I agree that it doesn't belong in the SMTP spec.  But the cumulative 
effect of receiving sites' ad hoc and ill-informed filtering policies is 
to degrade the utility of Internet email for everyone.    It's not only 
a problem for the sites that set the policies.

Keith

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email