Re: [ietf-smtp] Fwd: I-D Action: draft-melnikov-smtp-metadata-00.txt
Ned Freed <ned.freed@mrochek.com> Tue, 24 March 2015 15:24 UTC
Return-Path: <ned.freed@mrochek.com>
X-Original-To: ietf-smtp@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf-smtp@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5B2C31A88DB for <ietf-smtp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 24 Mar 2015 08:24:24 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.012
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.012 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
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 ikmwcirjf_a1 for <ietf-smtp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 24 Mar 2015 08:24:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mauve.mrochek.com (mauve.mrochek.com [66.159.242.17]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E48111A88E4 for <ietf-smtp@ietf.org>; Tue, 24 Mar 2015 08:24:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from dkim-sign.mauve.mrochek.com by mauve.mrochek.com (PMDF V6.1-1 #35243) id <01PJZ8WM3AVK00EO5P@mauve.mrochek.com> for ietf-smtp@ietf.org; Tue, 24 Mar 2015 08:19:13 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=mrochek.com; s=mauve; t=1427210353; bh=wLvXaz3wi4dfUpzVCkHGGSytpQbLLac3FFwuQS/QIu8=; h=Cc:Date:From:Subject:In-reply-to:References:To; b=LW5Ple1JqPbNpJ9SrFpThbv1S65gL1W3g30FcQ2XmZx7wCyFkqQUvWemhhxJNZwc1 guBhEd9IgUbWAW2xWxAfWZSY4q06c8UZ3rm3mw4uI9toMke1XO53qC/eR8JPLmnqta dL4/s6raKOzOOpOeDegIawG3rgzl5ULliOIQ3vlA=
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Received: from mauve.mrochek.com by mauve.mrochek.com (PMDF V6.1-1 #35243) id <01PJZ7DKF5C00000AQ@mauve.mrochek.com>; Tue, 24 Mar 2015 08:19:10 -0700 (PDT)
Message-id: <01PJZ8WKBIO40000AQ@mauve.mrochek.com>
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2015 07:38:03 -0700
From: Ned Freed <ned.freed@mrochek.com>
In-reply-to: "Your message dated Tue, 24 Mar 2015 14:54:42 +0100" <bc63804d-8903-41e7-a6f4-5aa58471d787@gulbrandsen.priv.no>
References: <20150307202540.13358.58739.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <550EE444.4040507@isode.com> <4175cf7b-c14e-455d-bd6b-0903d9de6194@gulbrandsen.priv.no> <550F2851.2010409@isode.com> <259d7567-2b13-46df-bb03-54f74fc9e1b4@gulbrandsen.priv.no> <01PJX8XAIWS0000090@mauve.mrochek.com> <CABa8R6sQ1MCpYLW7NzwJTiVdWFgFOBEEx7GxJxJL71p+FBfsgg@mail.gmail.com> <01PJZ5MHFIS40000AQ@mauve.mrochek.com> <bc63804d-8903-41e7-a6f4-5aa58471d787@gulbrandsen.priv.no>
To: Arnt Gulbrandsen <arnt@gulbrandsen.priv.no>
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-smtp/FRgAr18v771lyGbyTikY3H2S6KU>
Cc: Brandon Long <blong@google.com>, Ned Freed <ned.freed@mrochek.com>, ietf-smtp@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [ietf-smtp] Fwd: I-D Action: draft-melnikov-smtp-metadata-00.txt
X-BeenThere: ietf-smtp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Tue, 24 Mar 2015 15:24:24 -0000
> Ned Freed writes: > > Of course another way to look at it is that this is Yet Another Way that > > DKIM/DMARC is incompatiable with our existing standards and infrastructure. > > Calling for Yet Another Fix. > Perhaps. Although in this case I suggest that BINARYMIME isn't part of our > existing standards and infrastructure, for lack of implementation and > deployment. Arnt, I'm sorry, but that's bunk. And I must say I'm getting pretty tired of this specious line of argument. RFC 3030 specifies a standards track protocol. That alone is sufficient to refute your suggestion that this isn't part of our existing standards suite. As for it not being part of our infrastructure, what you actually mean is that "I haven't seen it in the wild and some google searches I did and some web sites I visited turned up no signs of usage". The problem with that is you don't know everything that's out there. (And neither do I.) (And neither does anyone else on this list.) What we do know is that the Internet is a big place, with lots of nooks and crannies we can't see into. And in this instance you now know (because I told you) that you missed a use case you had no insight into: Mobile device submission. Which happens to be a space where support in a single client can have a rather large impact. So your suggestion that there's no deployment is wrong as well. Now, as it happens the existing deployment is a type that doesn't overlap existing DKIM usage much if at all. So we haven't had to deal with the interoperability problem we've created. And that's OK, I guess, as long as nobody tries to expand the scope of DKIM to end-to-end scenarios. If you try to do that there's going to be a conflict, and this time it's going to be DKIM that's in the position of not being deployed in the relevant space. And the combination of that along with the apparent desire to use BINARYMIME outside of the submission space being expressed by some major players here may be sufficient cause to want to define an encoding-insensitive MIME canonicalization for use with DKIM. But more generally, I categorically reject the notion that apparent lack of deployment of a standard is ipso facto sufficient cause to completely ignore that standard and to deploy things that fail to interoperate with it. This strategy is a a sure-fire recipe for creating ongoing operational problems. Of course this doesn't mean we are bound to respect every standard we ever created, unchanged, forevermore. But we have ways - technical, expository, and procedural - for dealing with such conflicts when they arise, and my own suggestion is that we use them. Ned
- [ietf-smtp] Fwd: I-D Action: draft-melnikov-smtp-… Alexey Melnikov
- Re: [ietf-smtp] Fwd: I-D Action: draft-melnikov-s… Arnt Gulbrandsen
- Re: [ietf-smtp] Fwd: I-D Action: draft-melnikov-s… John Levine
- Re: [ietf-smtp] Fwd: I-D Action: draft-melnikov-s… Alexey Melnikov
- Re: [ietf-smtp] Fwd: I-D Action: draft-melnikov-s… Alexey Melnikov
- Re: [ietf-smtp] Fwd: I-D Action: draft-melnikov-s… John R Levine
- Re: [ietf-smtp] Fwd: I-D Action: draft-melnikov-s… Stephan Bosch
- Re: [ietf-smtp] Fwd: I-D Action: draft-melnikov-s… Alexey Melnikov
- Re: [ietf-smtp] Fwd: I-D Action: draft-melnikov-s… Alexey Melnikov
- Re: [ietf-smtp] Fwd: I-D Action: draft-melnikov-s… Arnt Gulbrandsen
- Re: [ietf-smtp] Fwd: I-D Action: draft-melnikov-s… Steve Atkins
- Re: [ietf-smtp] Fwd: I-D Action: draft-melnikov-s… Ned Freed
- Re: [ietf-smtp] Fwd: I-D Action: draft-melnikov-s… Brandon Long
- Re: [ietf-smtp] Fwd: I-D Action: draft-melnikov-s… John Levine
- Re: [ietf-smtp] Fwd: I-D Action: draft-melnikov-s… Rolf E. Sonneveld
- Re: [ietf-smtp] Fwd: I-D Action: draft-melnikov-s… John Levine
- Re: [ietf-smtp] Fwd: I-D Action: draft-melnikov-s… Ned Freed
- Re: [ietf-smtp] Fwd: I-D Action: draft-melnikov-s… Arnt Gulbrandsen
- Re: [ietf-smtp] Fwd: I-D Action: draft-melnikov-s… Ned Freed
- Re: [ietf-smtp] Fwd: I-D Action: draft-melnikov-s… Brandon Long