Re: [ietf-smtp] EHLO domain validation requirement in RFC 5321

Sam Varshavchik <> Sun, 27 September 2020 23:55 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 778743A0AD9 for <>; Sun, 27 Sep 2020 16:55:55 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id riQkPlh93z_O for <>; Sun, 27 Sep 2020 16:55:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 22A593A0AC3 for <>; Sun, 27 Sep 2020 16:55:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [::ffff:]) (TLS: TLSv1.3,256bits,TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) by with UTF8ESMTPS id 00000000002C0020.000000005F712687.00004AB0; Sun, 27 Sep 2020 19:55:51 -0400
Received: from (localhost []) (IDENT: uid 1004) by with UTF8SMTP id 000000000001C7C3.000000005F712686.00008D40; Sun, 27 Sep 2020 19:55:50 -0400
References: <> <> <> <> <> <>
Message-ID: <>
From: Sam Varshavchik <>
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 2020 19:55:50 -0400
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Mime-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by mimegpg
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary=""; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [ietf-smtp] EHLO domain validation requirement in RFC 5321
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Discussion of issues related to Simple Mail Transfer Protocol \(SMTP\) \[RFC 821, RFC 2821, RFC 5321\]" <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 27 Sep 2020 23:55:55 -0000

Keith Moore writes:

> On 9/27/20 6:00 PM, Dave Crocker wrote:
>> gosh, Keith.  Don't you consider 95% spam in email over the Internet to be a  
>> degradation worthy of attention?
> Of course I do, but ONLY if the degradation due to spam filtering is part of  
> the picture.

Any "degradation due to spam filtering" is only due to the spam's existence  
itself. If there were no spam, there wouldn't be any spam filtering to  
degrade anything. Spam filtering is not a problem, it's a reaction to a  

Furthermore, nobody has any real standing to complain about anyone else's  
spam filtering. I have no standing to take issue with whatever spam  
filtering you employ, no matter what I think of its merits. And if you don't  
do any spam filtering, that's wonderful. However, neither do you have any  
standing to take issue with anyone else's spam filtering, either.

Once this basic fundamental fact is established – that anyone is free to  
configure their mail servers in whaever whey they deem to see fit and they  
are no obligation to accomodate any external third party's desires or  
opinions – then any pontifications on the negative effects on spam  
filtering become nothing more than philosophical discussions, void of any  
practical application. Anyone is free to campaign as much as they wish about  
whatever undesirable effects of spam filtering they object to. They won't  
have any effect. People will continue to use spam filtering methods that  
work for them, and not the ones that some other third party approves of, in  
some way.

>> Simple suggestion:  Since you take considerable exception to common email  
>> anti-abuse practices, how about providing a detailed plan for an alternative  
>> approach and demonstrate its efficacy?
> Simple suggestion:   Why don't you stop pretending that this isn't a  
> problem?   Or maybe, stop trying to change the subject any time this gets  
> uncomfortable?

What problem? I see no problem with spam filtering, whatsoever. And I see no  
problem with EHLO/HELO domain validation. It's a very effective spam filter,  
and I will continue to use it. I do not believe that I have a unique, or a  
novel, take on this subject matter.