IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Keith Moore <moore@network-heretics.com> Mon, 07 October 2019 00:30 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 50746120127 for <ietf-smtp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 6 Oct 2019 17:30:08 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.598
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, 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 AIbXfSoadhcJ for <ietf-smtp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 6 Oct 2019 17:30:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from out5-smtp.messagingengine.com (out5-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.29]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A48EC1200CE for <ietf-smtp@ietf.org>; Sun, 6 Oct 2019 17:30:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from compute6.internal (compute6.nyi.internal [10.202.2.46]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id DCA54218C1; Sun, 6 Oct 2019 20:30:05 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from mailfrontend2 ([10.202.2.163]) by compute6.internal (MEProxy); Sun, 06 Oct 2019 20:30:05 -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=2/sdqK mS6lJBOLZKOjK+XrmngjW4HIaQjpNsTIlBK3A=; b=fixNdX2qAsUcYgPf5pfDq+ ER6iQ++EnPUr/P1vFla/7+AW1WlOV3zdKq1gGqUQoRp3Qq3FV0tYG0xTZWLf2j// vKlcuWLyVERCfGpmVMPk8AhEjd2uboHNFZKoEiUwlRt16ixmdrc0C9oUoQBFjkS6 GCCBsjpaiUzVt5r2D8uhcYxBFhTIwkKVX548BKIfdx35HueOjf+MGPmudAHQ6PQM XBfOCCqhNmVXpVNLngbcGLt0SMXD3gTVRzftGfKBf7BUtOFWVsZMAXs7HrLsFZBB ffIX8U2q6GzWFAz5hYN8EWQIPK27t4fRirAm1BlQcEz8PGOKgLAVY+lU5FJy+ATQ ==
X-ME-Sender: <xms:DYeaXfHmMB565obC6B1Q5fQQEykX52PzlFMhzn2p7svVyBESCKX9SQ>
X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedufedrheeigdefiecutefuodetggdotefrodftvf curfhrohhfihhlvgemucfhrghsthforghilhdpqfgfvfdpuffrtefokffrpgfnqfghnecu uegrihhlohhuthemuceftddtnecunecujfgurhepuffvfhfhkffffgggjggtsegrtderre dtfeejnecuhfhrohhmpefmvghithhhucfoohhorhgvuceomhhoohhrvgesnhgvthifohhr khdqhhgvrhgvthhitghsrdgtohhmqeenucfkphepuddtkedrvddvuddrudektddrudehne curfgrrhgrmhepmhgrihhlfhhrohhmpehmohhorhgvsehnvghtfihorhhkqdhhvghrvght ihgtshdrtghomhenucevlhhushhtvghrufhiiigvpedt
X-ME-Proxy: <xmx:DYeaXdDmwpPQ7lggA1Lx3CRVzHWpY6wuf9w-JaWBLLpxaQzkhQlS7w> <xmx:DYeaXcONElyzuO-XjCvw47QYpGIWp_6eZzvJLcKsk000RRNWnlz2EA> <xmx:DYeaXdFf2AvO64uvfHfqt2BCZctvseKj73qZUPU_PnaMXAPtPizAsA> <xmx:DYeaXffujy_0mpWT3imW4Adt3LaqLvjHjduZdK3LbowVGTfo9zsGfA>
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 F33FDD60069; Sun, 6 Oct 2019 20:30:04 -0400 (EDT)
To: ietf-smtp@ietf.org
References: <alpine.OSX.2.21.99999.368.1910062009420.35480@ary.qy>
From: Keith Moore <moore@network-heretics.com>
Message-ID: <5066ffc5-fcf9-0c65-1fd8-8cdaae42ddc9@network-heretics.com>
Date: Sun, 06 Oct 2019 20:30:04 -0400
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <alpine.OSX.2.21.99999.368.1910062009420.35480@ary.qy>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------062DEC40C3AF0AA60744669B"
Content-Language: en-US
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-smtp/BBiA_EBxyoT4V2KBWWWKr84asoU>
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 00:30:08 -0000

On 10/6/19 8:10 PM, John R Levine wrote:

> In article <aa7a9556-ad45-3891-95ab-31949c44a5ab@network-heretics.com>,
>> ... If an MX record with target smtps- or starttls- isn't signed
>> using DNSSEC, it's not clear that the client should trust the smtps- or
>> starttls- prefix, and that the client should drop mail that can't be
>> relayed that way.??...
>
> What's wrong with MTS-STS defined in RFC 8461?
>
> It's defined, it works, it's deployed at a lot of large mail systems. 

I hope MTS-STS turns out to be sufficient.   But I've seen so many 
attempted solutions fail for one reason or another that I don't think it 
hurts to discuss potential alternatives.

Keith

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email