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

Keith Moore <> Mon, 28 September 2020 00:01 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3BDF23A0AF1 for <>; Sun, 27 Sep 2020 17:01:14 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.111
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.111 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.213, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id oGSgLWbN5kq7 for <>; Sun, 27 Sep 2020 17:01:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 639E53A0AE4 for <>; Sun, 27 Sep 2020 17:01:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from compute4.internal (compute4.nyi.internal []) by mailout.west.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id DB7D19E7 for <>; Sun, 27 Sep 2020 20:01:09 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from mailfrontend2 ([]) by compute4.internal (MEProxy); Sun, 27 Sep 2020 20:01:09 -0400
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=; 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=qoOFkP 7es5+BhPaLJ72M9KD2SncNjewrQtQZvOZJtCY=; b=HIMNfJFhq9Nx2nIpav3O/G x+0/rQIrPJcCNhFuftBj4znQCp0uyOwd1eV3+1G9ZI318CibWms2EO1n1gBcyE9w 2Nz9Dl3aDPKoRG9LYP3CYX68aVUszdlt7GMePJcDUr599I75qHBsREY/dfZ8izxS rQzegGjv7a+9po6UVDkMmI4lRExsNOkq6I+8gJGayP8ckLiVI4DJ74JgFdHkSqLi 7j3/YJ8frh0V7/E04ijK2FHicvePbx5Rxtklf3D0loomOVItHNbdySkssZirTVfh OS9boDWbPfQLUJQNoWOk0S/itvtAoC3LtCJRFEdom9MO9ikb/YLbnn/LJQY0biCg ==
X-ME-Sender: <xms:xSdxX1zVVyzydWVIiV_3wb3UGTheasSK7gD-dy97ueCx3Da8pU4mrw> <xme:xSdxX1Sc3Is2GwF7przwURRJe2EDbanDTDrcfnhDjje6U0EFXByDVJSDpXkwEpvha _plfj1vdEMHIw>
X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedujedrvdehgddvkecutefuodetggdotefrodftvf curfhrohhfihhlvgemucfhrghsthforghilhdpqfgfvfdpuffrtefokffrpgfnqfghnecu uegrihhlohhuthemuceftddtnecunecujfgurhepuffvfhfhkffffgggjggtsegrtderre dtfeehnecuhfhrohhmpefmvghithhhucfoohhorhgvuceomhhoohhrvgesnhgvthifohhr khdqhhgvrhgvthhitghsrdgtohhmqeenucggtffrrghtthgvrhhnpeeuveelvdehgeetvd euheegieetuddtuedujefgueeuffekleetgefgvdehvefhhfenucfkphepuddtkedrvddv uddrudektddrudehnecuvehluhhsthgvrhfuihiivgeptdenucfrrghrrghmpehmrghilh hfrhhomhepmhhoohhrvgesnhgvthifohhrkhdqhhgvrhgvthhitghsrdgtohhm
X-ME-Proxy: <xmx:xSdxX_VfMq401b4wc2ow2Qav5p4Kfmi03FE8P6H5CnaovrIZe0wULA> <xmx:xSdxX3hlaJ7C1dpV9PmPMatM56uGpSF1N-Yg2QHZbgjodXp1HuLY4w> <xmx:xSdxX3DIgBQR0L8SKUqQerItwiGoG-LynniN4u0nehxSah_GYnxFcQ> <xmx:xSdxX7zvYoaJLY2wbOPeLa5wbZJWkP9OxjWsD81RGVe3p2RAdgxKEg>
Received: from [] ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 07CB33064683 for <>; Sun, 27 Sep 2020 20:01:08 -0400 (EDT)
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
From: Keith Moore <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 2020 20:01:07 -0400
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.10.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------6EEB91617DB3E0FAEE57692F"
Content-Language: en-US
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: Mon, 28 Sep 2020 00:01:14 -0000

On 9/27/20 7:55 PM, Sam Varshavchik 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 problem.

Emphatically disagree.   Anytime a legitimate message isn't delivered 
due to spam filtering, the spam filtering IS the problem.

> Furthermore, nobody has any real standing to complain about anyone 
> else's spam filtering. 

Emphatically disagree.  Users should have a reasonable expectation of 
having their mail delivered without having to stand on their heads and 
beat a syncopated rhythm with a walrus appendage on a skin drum during a 
full moon.

> Once this basic fundamental fact is established 

as soon as you start stating relevant facts, I'll listen.

> – 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.

Irrelevant.   For the most part, "people" don't choose their spam 
filtering; they have it imposed on them and often have zero control over 
it except to try a different email address.