Re: [ietf-smtp] Curious, with this now being associated to emailcore, should list name change?
John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com> Sun, 19 July 2020 18:20 UTC
Return-Path: <john-ietf@jck.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 6B1623A08A2 for <ietf-smtp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 19 Jul 2020 11:20:01 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.897
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.897 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 g-1uauMMW0n1 for <ietf-smtp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 19 Jul 2020 11:20:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from bsa2.jck.com (bsa2.jck.com [70.88.254.51]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DD3EE3A089D for <ietf-smtp@ietf.org>; Sun, 19 Jul 2020 11:19:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [198.252.137.10] (helo=PSB) by bsa2.jck.com with esmtp (Exim 4.82 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <john-ietf@jck.com>) id 1jxDuo-000B1V-7G; Sun, 19 Jul 2020 14:19:58 -0400
Date: Sun, 19 Jul 2020 14:19:52 -0400
From: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>
To: Arnt Gulbrandsen <arnt@gulbrandsen.priv.no>, ietf-smtp@ietf.org
Message-ID: <B7E061A14E80279E1E14D92F@PSB>
In-Reply-To: <ce227a65-05f8-4b3a-b464-5720cd39fc3b@gulbrandsen.priv.no>
References: <81c2a19c-f19e-b495-3441-22c2a112037c@linuxmagic.com> <52D9A14B4CDD14BB4C97C355@PSB> <CAKFo7w=9_eZda47ZMUv_NE9iN1FEnGM7m3nUFy3_Wq4se+W8XQ@mail.gmail.com> <DE8B2C33275660E19FFA513C@PSB> <CAKFo7wmsm+1ck5G7Sj-NpnyXgeHd14cxGQ6K9KFeVG0_CTM1sw@mail.gmail.com> <5C6196E28FCDC4A312E73A00@PSB> <CAKFo7wk+jLGqjs6mU=Gv3G1xAg+O5OyTmt66fjW4DLzUT5kuPw@mail.gmail.com> <20200719144357.A64221D393E2@ary.qy> <ce227a65-05f8-4b3a-b464-5720cd39fc3b@gulbrandsen.priv.no>
X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Win32)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 198.252.137.10
X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: john-ietf@jck.com
X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on bsa2.jck.com); SAEximRunCond expanded to false
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-smtp/cIMaldRhE6dfQWfT4KcLGbQWTMs>
Subject: Re: [ietf-smtp] Curious, with this now being associated to emailcore, should list name change?
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: Sun, 19 Jul 2020 18:20:01 -0000
--On Sunday, July 19, 2020 18:57 +0200 Arnt Gulbrandsen <arnt@gulbrandsen.priv.no> wrote: > On Sunday 19 July 2020 16:43:57 CEST, John Levine wrote: >> Adding new names to the registry requires expert review and I >> expect the expert would be sceptical of proposed names that >> were a lot longer than the existing ones. I don't see any >> over 35 characters which seems reasonable. > > My personal server currently has 559 field names longer than > that. The 25 worst offenders: > > X-Offlineimap-X706593913-6d61646475636b2e6e6574-494e424f582e6 > 47261667473 > X-Gemstorm-Computing-T/A-The-It-Company-Mailscanner-Informati > on > X-Ms-Exchange-Crosstenant-Originalattributedtenantconnectingip > X-Gemstorm-Computing-T/A-The-It-Company-Mailscanner-Spamcheck > X-Ssjmail.Ssjfinance.Com-Mail-Server-Mailscanner-Information > Staticcontent1_Header1_F731d3dc-Fd31-4161-Ad91-1083ba56853f > Staticcontent2_Header2_F731d3dc-Fd31-4161-Ad91-1083ba56853f > X-Mimedefang-Relay-15b21d6f94afe8e768c451e09085c007047aae7e > X-Mimedefang-Relay-89167b66339720c294cd81d33948afd6488b114f > X-Ssjmail.Ssjfinance.Com-Mail-Server-Mailscanner-Spamcheck > X-Ssjmail.Ssjfinance.Com-Mail-Server-Mailscanner-Spamscore >... <Sounds of virtual vomiting> It is interesting that every one of these starts in "X-". Presumably, by putting "X-" in front of their field names, the perpetrators believe that they are exempt, not only from the registry and its rules, but any rules at all. That would be my concern here: maybe it would be worth getting a stake in the ground that long, or very, long field names are a bad idea and/or a bigger stake in the ground about "X-" prefixes. Unless we accompany it with a really strong, clear, and persuasive discussion of the problems it causes, which might help, I wonder if the offenders would pay any attention at all? The rest of this note is more or less a rejection of the notion that because there are no protocol police, we can't do anything (or anything useful), with some questions, speculation, and examples about what might be done. I haven't made my mind up yet whether doing something would be worthwhile; I just want to get past the idea of impossibility. Those who aren't interested in that speculation, or who would prefer to leave it for the BOF or WG, should probably stop reading here. ----- Perhaps more important than what the perpetrators do today, user-defined-fields using "X-" were deprecated by RFC 2822 nineteen years ago, with that message reinforced by RFC 6648 more than eight years ago. Much as, on principle, I hate the idea of intermediate MTAs messing with non-trace headers, would relays or anti-malware systems consider just deleting the things as potentially-dangerous noise? Do they check now for embedded nastiness in header field data as well as body parts? Should we be encouraging Submission Servers to discard them (there is enough flexibility in RFC 6409 to allow that and, given that such servers are not supposed to inject non-conforming stuff into the public Internet SMTP system, our banning them would make a Submission Server that let them pass non-conforming)? How about the interface between the mailstore and receiving MUAs: could these things be tossed out there? Would any of that help and would our saying something even stronger than what RFC 6648 says (it mostly applies to new header field names, not older ones, but I'd guess the vast majority of these were invented after June 2012 and almost certainly after April 2001) be useful? Even if the fields are, as John Levine points out, probably just clueless rather than spammy, it is probably not a wonderful idea to encourage noise in mail headers, those whose intent is malicious are likely to uncover opportunities sooner or later, and perhaps (just perhaps) people getting a little proactive now might prevent or head off future attacks. There aren't any protocol police, but there are certainly implementers who can decide, especially if we make a strong recommendation in that area to help them defend against angry folks who produce this stuff, to not tolerate this particular type of nonsense any more. Should we register a "Deleted-NonConforming-Headers:" field, treat it as an optional trace field with "By" and timestamp information, and then have the rest of the value showing either the number of such fields tossed out or the header field names (but not values)? Would the suggestion that started this thread be consistent with an applicability statement, either in 2822bis or the separate document for which draft-klensin-email-core-as-00 is a placeholder, that said something like "Header field names starting in 'X-' or longer than NNN are prohibited unless they are legacy registrations in the IANA registry. They MUST NOT be transmitted in messages and Submission Servers and other systems encountering them MAY, and in most cases SHOULD, delete them"? At a whole different level, at least several of these examples appear to be loop detection tools. Should we be taking another look at the loop detection support machinery in 5321 (IIR, although there have been some clarifications and details, that machinery is not significantly changed since RFC 821) either as part of the proposed emailcore effort or separately? Again, I don't yet have an opinion as to whether we should take those, or other, actions on this topic. I'm just wondering what actions might be effective if we did decide to take them. best, john
- [ietf-smtp] Curious, with this now being associat… Michael Peddemors
- Re: [ietf-smtp] Curious, with this now being asso… John C Klensin
- Re: [ietf-smtp] Curious, with this now being asso… E Sam
- Re: [ietf-smtp] Curious, with this now being asso… John C Klensin
- Re: [ietf-smtp] Curious, with this now being asso… E Sam
- Re: [ietf-smtp] Curious, with this now being asso… John C Klensin
- Re: [ietf-smtp] Curious, with this now being asso… John Levine
- Re: [ietf-smtp] Curious, with this now being asso… E Sam
- Re: [ietf-smtp] Curious, with this now being asso… John Levine
- Re: [ietf-smtp] Curious, with this now being asso… John C Klensin
- Re: [ietf-smtp] Curious, with this now being asso… Jeremy Harris
- Re: [ietf-smtp] Curious, with this now being asso… Arnt Gulbrandsen
- Re: [ietf-smtp] Curious, with this now being asso… John Levine
- Re: [ietf-smtp] Curious, with this now being asso… John C Klensin
- Re: [ietf-smtp] Curious, with this now being asso… Arnt Gulbrandsen
- Re: [ietf-smtp] Curious, with this now being asso… John C Klensin
- Re: [ietf-smtp] Curious, with this now being asso… Alessandro Vesely
- Re: [ietf-smtp] Curious, with this now being asso… John Levine
- Re: [ietf-smtp] Curious, with this now being asso… John Levine
- Re: [ietf-smtp] Curious, with this now being asso… Michael Peddemors
- Re: [ietf-smtp] Curious, with this now being asso… Dilyan Palauzov
- Re: [ietf-smtp] Curious, with this now being asso… Michael Richardson
- Re: [ietf-smtp] broken signatures, was Curious John R Levine
- Re: [ietf-smtp] Curious, with this now being asso… Hector Santos
- Re: [ietf-smtp] Curious, with this now being asso… John C Klensin
- Re: [ietf-smtp] Curious, with this now being asso… Hector Santos
- Re: [ietf-smtp] broken signatures, was Curious John Levine
- Re: [ietf-smtp] broken signatures, was Curious Brandon Long
- Re: [ietf-smtp] broken signatures, was Curious Hector Santos
- Re: [ietf-smtp] broken signatures, was Curious John C Klensin
- Re: [ietf-smtp] Curious, with this now being asso… Pete Resnick
- Re: [ietf-smtp] Curious, with this now being asso… Pete Resnick
- Re: [ietf-smtp] broken signatures, was Curious Paul Smith
- Re: [ietf-smtp] Curious, with this now being asso… John C Klensin
- Re: [ietf-smtp] broken signatures, was Curious John C Klensin
- Re: [ietf-smtp] Curious, with this now being asso… Pete Resnick
- Re: [ietf-smtp] broken signatures, was Curious Michael Richardson
- Re: [ietf-smtp] broken signatures, was Curious Kurt Andersen (b)
- Re: [ietf-smtp] Curious, with this now being asso… Keith Moore
- Re: [ietf-smtp] Curious, with this now being asso… John C Klensin
- Re: [ietf-smtp] broken signatures, was Curious Dave Crocker
- Re: [ietf-smtp] broken signatures, was Curious Michael Richardson
- Re: [ietf-smtp] Curious, with this now being asso… Sam Varshavchik
- Re: [ietf-smtp] broken signatures, was Curious Hector Santos
- Re: [ietf-smtp] broken signatures, was Curious Hector Santos
- Re: [ietf-smtp] broken signatures, was Curious John R Levine
- Re: [ietf-smtp] broken signatures, was Curious John C Klensin
- Re: [ietf-smtp] Curious, with this now being asso… Keith Moore
- Re: [ietf-smtp] broken signatures, was Curious Dave Crocker
- Re: [ietf-smtp] Curious, with this now being asso… John C Klensin
- Re: [ietf-smtp] Curious, with this now being asso… Keith Moore
- Re: [ietf-smtp] broken signatures, was Curious Dilyan Palauzov
- Re: [ietf-smtp] Curious, with this now being asso… Alexey Melnikov
- Re: [ietf-smtp] Curious, with this now being asso… Alexey Melnikov
- Re: [ietf-smtp] Curious, with this now being asso… Ned Freed
- Re: [ietf-smtp] broken signatures, was Curious Alessandro Vesely
- Re: [ietf-smtp] broken signatures, was Curious John Levine
- Re: [ietf-smtp] broken signatures, was Curious John Levine
- Re: [ietf-smtp] broken signatures, was Curious Pete Resnick
- Re: [ietf-smtp] broken signatures, was Curious Dave Crocker
- Re: [ietf-smtp] broken signatures, was Curious Michael Richardson
- Re: [ietf-smtp] broken signatures, was Curious John R Levine
- Re: [ietf-smtp] broken signatures, was Curious John R Levine
- Re: [ietf-smtp] broken signatures, was Curious Pete Resnick
- Re: [ietf-smtp] broken signatures, was Curious John R Levine
- Re: [ietf-smtp] broken signatures, was Curious e sam
- Re: [ietf-smtp] broken signatures, was Curious Dave Crocker
- Re: [ietf-smtp] broken signatures, was Curious e sam
- Re: [ietf-smtp] broken signatures, was Curious Steve Atkins
- Re: [ietf-smtp] Curious, with this now being asso… John C Klensin