IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [ietf-smtp] Possible contribution to moving forward with RFC5321bis SMTP

Hector Santos <hsantos@isdg.net> Thu, 02 January 2020 15:20 UTC

Return-Path: <hsantos@isdg.net>
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 958FC120091 for <ietf-smtp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 2 Jan 2020 07:20:54 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.001
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.001 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=isdg.net header.b=A+AuZ/3n; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=beta.winserver.com header.b=ekenMRcL
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 nuhNQRkAr5i4 for <ietf-smtp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 2 Jan 2020 07:20:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.winserver.com (groups.winserver.com [76.245.57.69]) (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 6FEED12009C for <ietf-smtp@ietf.org>; Thu, 2 Jan 2020 07:20:53 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; d=isdg.net; s=tms1; a=rsa-sha1; c=simple/relaxed; l=517; t=1577978445; atps=ietf.org; atpsh=sha1; h=Received:Received:Received:Received:Message-ID:Date:From: Organization:To:Subject:List-ID; bh=c56fnt38l0qLNrf59q2tw16GFko=; b=A+AuZ/3nFnlO3YusKDOFuXYDR3DrzhxUN2pQow0/jcdYRV8CBfBWLLJSrqButG BB/io4YIbt/GELCGtPo4Txstq8flJck2R4o5h8/tIg7Z/f8fX6lBZSVc45mVksdI BlaFOZA7q+pfs+erTZw8wUk6ZG6NbqTJGnaJFEeCmcOSo=
Received: by winserver.com (Wildcat! SMTP Router v8.0.454.9) for ietf-smtp@ietf.org; Thu, 02 Jan 2020 10:20:45 -0500
Authentication-Results: dkim.winserver.com; dkim=pass header.d=beta.winserver.com header.s=tms1 header.i=beta.winserver.com; dmarc=pass policy=reject author.d=isdg.net signer.d=beta.winserver.com (atps signer);
Received: from beta.winserver.com ([76.245.57.74]) by winserver.com (Wildcat! SMTP v8.0.454.9) with ESMTP id 1590811763.1.6792; Thu, 02 Jan 2020 10:20:43 -0500
DKIM-Signature: v=1; d=beta.winserver.com; s=tms1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/relaxed; l=517; t=1577978266; h=Received:Received: Message-ID:Date:From:Organization:To:Subject:List-ID; bh=+pzZ/9r WpmqdljNOp/aLyRjxoYk0AWi9OBoTJdFNf60=; b=ekenMRcLvMPS8RXfCB3BXjv 8dfmmLAC8iXuVP4VK+4I2cJXC4zpdH5UzITHMtEWDsnvktr9kkByzzDxGUNrYJ0b ErZ52FFgLTLDxyXxFL+Qt+2LuISWOw9fQXlqIBELGXDn6ZrOztrNa5FQ+wzgq5iV VshC7fH8UH2G3dwUDuLA=
Received: by beta.winserver.com (Wildcat! SMTP Router v8.0.454.9) for ietf-smtp@ietf.org; Thu, 02 Jan 2020 10:17:46 -0500
Received: from [192.168.1.68] ([75.26.216.248]) by beta.winserver.com (Wildcat! SMTP v8.0.454.9) with ESMTP id 2153446281.1.6084; Thu, 02 Jan 2020 10:17:45 -0500
Message-ID: <5E0E0A4D.6020509@isdg.net>
Date: Thu, 02 Jan 2020 10:20:45 -0500
From: Hector Santos <hsantos@isdg.net>
Reply-To: hsantos@isdg.net
Organization: Santronics Software, Inc.
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.8.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: ietf-smtp@ietf.org
References: <20200101175510.8549A11E2905@ary.qy> <D441E0BE-1F32-4329-9296-A5026540E8D0@dukhovni.org> <994e7a23-9e80-4751-6067-8863ad0ee72f@network-heretics.com> <2Iq+URBKeODeFANB@highwayman.com> <5E0E04AA.5070408@isdg.net>
In-Reply-To: <5E0E04AA.5070408@isdg.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-smtp/VTmQJ80XcnCFI7ieuW2w0c_649M>
Subject: Re: [ietf-smtp] Possible contribution to moving forward with RFC5321bis SMTP
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, 02 Jan 2020 15:20:55 -0000

On 1/2/2020 9:56 AM, Hector Santos wrote:
>
> We am supportive of focusing on SMTP compliancy fine tuning. The
> administrative local policy stuff, while all good to know, good for an
> Informational Status doc, but not a BCP, nor for RFC5321bis PS work,
> it would be never ending with extremely rough positions.  If some
> local sites decide to reject IP-literals based on decision that
> contains bias so be it, they will deal with the false positives, but
> it is not SMTP.

arggh! I am ....

-- 
HLS

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email