IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

"John R Levine" <johnl@taugh.com> Mon, 07 October 2019 19:08 UTC

Return-Path: <johnl@taugh.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 3F972120111 for <ietf-smtp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 7 Oct 2019 12:08:37 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1536-bit key) header.d=iecc.com header.b=tbX36u6B; dkim=pass (1536-bit key) header.d=taugh.com header.b=2K5fud5a
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 ent5j87uq5NI for <ietf-smtp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 7 Oct 2019 12:08:35 -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 71F96120867 for <ietf-smtp@ietf.org>; Mon, 7 Oct 2019 12:08:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 19347 invoked from network); 7 Oct 2019 19:08:33 -0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=iecc.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:content-type:user-agent; s=4b91.5d9b8d31.k1910; i=johnl-iecc.com@submit.iecc.com; bh=5cgD3ADXLcFYPn8tE98A6UAb+SSn+t61DGx/BC4Nx14=; b=tbX36u6BPMl5S6Fw4WMqiWVbOeSqLXMI5nA46g3xkNVGezOSauy2EyEPxgX7WKBH9HP7swRpLZEpR3vVkZ4mWxliCFtL9R6VEf7RT7joFJfvm5kM3+vIUrK3lzlxfw4cuFuAsZxQDOEnMJmWCcsIPCALJBqHmrNt47ECGth4UzISoxs1R38dshDBbw++EQQgP8pppKcy/1aNQDzzgScXrXh1FYQ2FZr14jAs2LFxLVnX2AVFUiHSew7PeKDNTAZB
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=taugh.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:content-type:user-agent; s=4b91.5d9b8d31.k1910; olt=johnl-iecc.com@submit.iecc.com; bh=5cgD3ADXLcFYPn8tE98A6UAb+SSn+t61DGx/BC4Nx14=; b=2K5fud5a5PIdbgZldBptRkqKj26QhkSLh2If0WGtOoPXGVQzSyHy4VLt46kBp2ydNkjwgNdPg782167Tqcdmga05w7qW7z9SH4+vMOIAA5nh+z2hf44QQHPUD+ffUlJVtXK3rVvyDHCfLzIrzML3Z9vpWXHfJfULRzmrpsqbHaswl9yw6ULR2uHYcx3MCNXCjsRyohDqPsqgpwCStSOM92gqh+pjFPWST6rUOuz6EF2KNQCNtFBTbGZ4qeH8uNIa
Received: from localhost ([IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126::78:696d:6170]) by imap.iecc.com ([IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126::78:696d:6170]) with ESMTPSA (TLS1.3 ECDHE-RSA AES-256-GCM AEAD, johnl@iecc.com) via TCP6; 07 Oct 2019 19:08:32 -0000
Date: Mon, 07 Oct 2019 15:08:32 -0400
Message-ID: <alpine.OSX.2.21.99999.368.1910071506250.38715@ary.qy>
From: John R Levine <johnl@taugh.com>
To: Keith Moore <moore@network-heretics.com>
Cc: ietf-smtp@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <53D231EA-D749-4437-9759-6F1B3ECC6142@network-heretics.com>
References: <20191007162824.64ED8BB6CA1@ary.qy> <53D231EA-D749-4437-9759-6F1B3ECC6142@network-heretics.com>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.21.99999 (OSX 368 2019-09-06)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"; format="flowed"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-smtp/ZjCAmRMoG0xTha5H80u-puxFmV4>
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: Mon, 07 Oct 2019 19:08:47 -0000

On Mon, 7 Oct 2019, Keith Moore wrote:
>> There's been some discussion about how an authoritative server
>> might signal that it accepts DoT but it hasn't gotten very far.
>
> Well, maybe this use case will provide an incentive for someone to do the remaining work.

If you can figure out a backward compatible way for authoritative DNS 
servers to signal that they support DoT without a lot of performance loss 
(e.g., a failed probe to port 853 on every query to a non-DoT server), a 
lot of people over in dnsop would like to hear about it.

Regards,
John Levine, johnl@taugh.com, Taughannock Networks, Trumansburg NY
Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email