IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [ietf-smtp] Possible cont4ibution to moving forward with RFC5321bis SMTP

Keith Moore <moore@network-heretics.com> Fri, 03 January 2020 15:22 UTC

Return-Path: <moore@network-heretics.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 95A9812008D for <ietf-smtp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 3 Jan 2020 07:22:20 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.597
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.597 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com
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 58H0d4bDHf6R for <ietf-smtp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 3 Jan 2020 07:22:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: from out2-smtp.messagingengine.com (out2-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.26]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 896D4120043 for <ietf-smtp@ietf.org>; Fri, 3 Jan 2020 07:22:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: from compute6.internal (compute6.nyi.internal [10.202.2.46]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id D4FC921B8B; Fri, 3 Jan 2020 10:22:18 -0500 (EST)
Received: from mailfrontend1 ([10.202.2.162]) by compute6.internal (MEProxy); Fri, 03 Jan 2020 10:22:18 -0500
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:content-transfer-encoding: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=fm1; bh=LgGNSickI+7Kzu6YoqBu041HXa9oGRE2IWQ7gpPV4 Hw=; b=eRNmx+4dm0/fCgORsvtFxwqEXj44aXY5RR8bsyVtgL2WnqQV/EB8NYS1a HKwQvLZ5BBOprVyxDTVPaniPM8/jKpa9KryZ+V9C+qfDXeM+TdWXU2vKeB3Qchqo rHXjvisgW4T7fyEqE5mfTdGeTvXgqps9cAmOskCihZmZUmZu++PIJQ02yLKsYUvb RI1pp8VMCCoQ39KalFqGHm5TVNET7xWSXtA3A/C8E7EcTkWMODAhijMLoQcWzXOG i1rxSvAwrcx4baqzxkpKHGoM9f+hUU0g8sw47c6pxLG55xO39e/hj29+eXXaCXC+ 4QF+BNIJrfLftiMoxfa40521mgmHQ==
X-ME-Sender: <xms:KlwPXhscT__SLJfM12s52Y5QJUgk3XMbrc61l259zfm7H_wbxf3Hig>
X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedufedrvdegfedgjeehucetufdoteggodetrfdotf fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfqfgfvpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgen uceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucesvcftvggtihhpihgvnhhtshculddquddttddmne cujfgurheptgfgggfuhfgjfffkfhfvofesthhqmhdthhdtjeenucfhrhhomhepmfgvihht hhcuofhoohhrvgcuoehmohhorhgvsehnvghtfihorhhkqdhhvghrvghtihgtshdrtghomh eqnecukfhppeelledrvddtfedrfedvrddutdenucfrrghrrghmpehmrghilhhfrhhomhep mhhoohhrvgesnhgvthifohhrkhdqhhgvrhgvthhitghsrdgtohhmnecuvehluhhsthgvrh fuihiivgeptd
X-ME-Proxy: <xmx:KlwPXs1fRf6UG1e7Y15-5-sh3pIruiRgX9IocyeM9hgdTPzDm9mIKQ> <xmx:KlwPXuD5KqhMKPeX7EgkCtsw3FQLqtvW1P_SnpKI9Sv8BcruQVXwhg> <xmx:KlwPXrVPDF2E2w-cehO0dV-zu0ES5MqX062nSS9NIWUVt7V2XYsk2g> <xmx:KlwPXmtD4UrzM0cuEOU0Sjkg0ZFLdSIRViw9J4bcD7KulE90MuTaAQ>
Received: from [30.64.126.197] (ip-99-203-32-10.pools.cgn.spcsdns.net [99.203.32.10]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 1238B80059; Fri, 3 Jan 2020 10:22:18 -0500 (EST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
From: Keith Moore <moore@network-heretics.com>
In-Reply-To: <20200102223338.18A2211EB91B@ary.qy>
Date: Fri, 03 Jan 2020 10:22:16 -0500
Cc: ietf-smtp@ietf.org, arnt@gulbrandsen.priv.no
Message-Id: <4380BBF0-F3B9-492F-BAEE-4B4310D4D3A0@network-heretics.com>
References: <20200102223338.18A2211EB91B@ary.qy>
To: John Levine <johnl@taugh.com>
X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (17C54)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-smtp/Zh0vgvocVrDv31c5bCFoELT4Iw8>
Subject: Re: [ietf-smtp] Possible cont4ibution 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: Fri, 03 Jan 2020 15:22:21 -0000

> On Jan 2, 2020, at 5:33 PM, John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> wrote:
> 
> If a host doesn't get v4 connections, it doesn't need to recognize v4
> address literals.  Similarly, if it doesn't get v6 connections it
> doesn't need to recognize v6 literals.

Emphatically disagree, because of NATs.  It’s counterproductive to gratuitously impair smtp to prevent it from being used across ipv4/IPv6 boundaries, across boundaries between public and private ipv4 networks, and across boundaries between private ipv4 networks.  It’s also counterproductive to put something into a specification that implementors have to ignore for pragmatic reasons.

Keith

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email