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

[John C Klensin <[e-mail]>]

--On Thursday, December 26, 2019 14:23 -0500 Keith Moore
<[e-mail]> wrote:

> John,
> 
> Just to clarify my point-of-view, I don't see the recent spam
> discussions as resulting in significant new text in
> RFC5231bis. What I imagine for RFC5321bis is at most some very
> slight tweaking of the wording.    As far as I can tell it
> was just a coincidence that the issue with the IETF MTA
> cropped up at about the same time you started to ask about
> 5321bis.

Keith,

I don't either.  But I don't see it as useful to revise 5321
without some consensus, however rough, about whether or not
something should be said about those issues.  I note in that
regard that there are advantages and uses for originator
authentication that have little or nothing to do with anti-spam
activities.   I also interpret some recent work and statements
within the IETF as leading toward prohibiting email that is not
encrypted hop-by-hop on the grounds of privacy protection not
anti-spam efforts.  If a WG comes together and treats those
issues as out of scope, it would be fine with me.  I just don't
think we should either be ignoring the issue or assuming that
everyone agrees with those who have spoken up most loudly in
recent weeks.

   john