Re: [ietf-smtp] DSNs

Viktor Dukhovni <ietf-dane@dukhovni.org> Tue, 05 May 2020 16:48 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf-dane@dukhovni.org>
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 6DF003A09C6 for <ietf-smtp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 5 May 2020 09:48:45 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
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 mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id SH9R3cPV0dTL for <ietf-smtp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 5 May 2020 09:48:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from straasha.imrryr.org (straasha.imrryr.org [100.2.39.101]) (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 CDACE3A09BE for <ietf-smtp@ietf.org>; Tue, 5 May 2020 09:48:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by straasha.imrryr.org (Postfix, from userid 1001) id E2C1F29DA36; Tue, 5 May 2020 12:48:40 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Tue, 5 May 2020 12:48:40 -0400
From: Viktor Dukhovni <ietf-dane@dukhovni.org>
To: ietf-smtp@ietf.org
Message-ID: <20200505164840.GJ76674@straasha.imrryr.org>
Reply-To: ietf-smtp@ietf.org
References: <20200426203307.97DFB1863A8B@ary.qy> <cone.1587934924.981704.31890.1004@monster.email-scan.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <cone.1587934924.981704.31890.1004@monster.email-scan.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.12.2 (2019-09-21)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-smtp/U-s-q-C32IcpWbO0mImp2Pxx2nU>
Subject: Re: [ietf-smtp] DSNs
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: Tue, 05 May 2020 16:48:46 -0000

On Sun, Apr 26, 2020 at 05:02:04PM -0400, Sam Varshavchik wrote:

> Incoming mail is addressed to a valid mailbox. Your MTA accepts it. As such,  
> the sender already knows it is a valid recipient.

When I set edge systems in environments with multiple internal mail
stores, with external mail arriving to user@theorg.example for internal
redistribution to wherever that user's email is actually delivered, the
envelope recipient address is rewritten to help the mail along to its
finan destination, but this is not "forwarding", it is still "relay".

The internal mailstore topology is none of the sender's concern, but
also I do not wish to be a source of backscatter if the envelope sender
address is fake.

> I don't follow what information is getting leaked, if a second later a  
> success DSN gets sent to the sender. The sender already knows it's a valid  
> mailbox, by the virtue of the fact that the mail was accepted.

The success DSN would originate deeper inside the ADMD, from whence I
prefer to neither send such DSNs, nor promise their delivery.  Instead
the sender's ADMD sends the SUCCESS notice when I accept the message
without advertising DSN support.

-- 
    Viktor.