IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

"John Levine" <johnl@taugh.com> Thu, 10 October 2019 01:55 UTC

Return-Path: <johnl@iecc.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 5EC6D120045 for <ietf-smtp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 9 Oct 2019 18:55:19 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.749
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.749 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.25, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1536-bit key) header.d=iecc.com header.b=IkIeSqjd; dkim=pass (1536-bit key) header.d=taugh.com header.b=nO+Wt7I3
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 S1qSZtsjWbrm for <ietf-smtp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 9 Oct 2019 18:55:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from gal.iecc.com (gal.iecc.com [IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126:0:43:6f73:7461]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id ECCC312004C for <ietf-smtp@ietf.org>; Wed, 9 Oct 2019 18:55:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 84898 invoked from network); 10 Oct 2019 01:55:16 -0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=iecc.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=14b9f.5d9e8f84.k1910; i=printer-iecc.com@submit.iecc.com; bh=8KUfX0pz6u+Jb4SdVtBzDR1hgfAiYTjGSmfwfwt547c=; b=IkIeSqjdSmEhMhNzz8Mq7OlkQm68CkiSin7MabUHw4ezSQ1b9YFWzzkezrWEEvT0RIRaF8jODXghK7i3Ssu9qM4IaYAmJV/3DoNcdE/d/ZcLwzr3kl+np/yQDfUdC8dNc7pqd+c+90msOO+cHggcuNBywjW+0JDeZHrk1ZspRY3J7ZHB0jMDNR0IrgYSHSVfcXnKU3PU/0ubOqXF8IZVjp39pcj5jIu3nP1Oj+aZumOMcs0YBAasSUFSY3QPWF1K
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=taugh.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=14b9f.5d9e8f84.k1910; olt=printer-iecc.com@submit.iecc.com; bh=8KUfX0pz6u+Jb4SdVtBzDR1hgfAiYTjGSmfwfwt547c=; b=nO+Wt7I3eO6JmaCZDvu64YJyxdkdZprVDW+RK7BklZTp66kr1of97wAKVir7ijyUq3ij8Al7PVJPsTYbyxJGLs7Phsh0LEIvLEk2ic+sWKdD0evBXKGCb1tPYJzZahbEaxd26EtWroYqFlnS7PICOBhnLao9u1whOB/whLmLQwn3///DT6Dh3rMDwtH6nuEWs/1uqtzckM2o+u6Ncqh1mJnZCj3fTva2NZv3IhESYvoW5DNrKb9Eztd0XSvJoNA6
Received: from ary.qy ([IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126::78:696d:6170]) by imap.iecc.com ([IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126::78:696d:6170]) with ESMTPSA (TLS1.2 ECDHE-RSA AES-256-GCM AEAD, printer@iecc.com) via TCP6; 10 Oct 2019 01:55:16 -0000
Received: by ary.qy (Postfix, from userid 501) id 92BBBC8D244; Wed, 9 Oct 2019 21:55:15 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Wed, 09 Oct 2019 21:55:15 -0400
Message-Id: <20191010015515.92BBBC8D244@ary.qy>
From: John Levine <johnl@taugh.com>
To: ietf-smtp@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <8BD8E6F9-02F5-4E6F-9B31-9E6BCF800DAD@dukhovni.org>
Organization: Taughannock Networks
X-Headerized: yes
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-transfer-encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-smtp/N3HFCl1SLlMN7dovkDG2EHOzEds>
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: Thu, 10 Oct 2019 01:55:19 -0000

In article <8BD8E6F9-02F5-4E6F-9B31-9E6BCF800DAD@dukhovni.org> you write:
>> On Oct 9, 2019, at 11:59 AM, John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> wrote:
>> 
>> There are also still some TLDs that don't do DNSSEC at all.
>
>For anyone who's keeping score, ... current list of unsigned
>TLDs below: ...

There are TLDs that are signed but don't let you install DS records.
I have a .am name but even though the TLD is signed, there is not as
far as I can tell any way to get my 2LD signed.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email