IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Keith Moore <moore@network-heretics.com> Mon, 07 October 2019 18:59 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 539F91200CD for <ietf-smtp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 7 Oct 2019 11:59:32 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, 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 myYs_RRCyQoR for <ietf-smtp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 7 Oct 2019 11:59:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from wout3-smtp.messagingengine.com (wout3-smtp.messagingengine.com [64.147.123.19]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7C4DF12008A for <ietf-smtp@ietf.org>; Mon, 7 Oct 2019 11:59:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from compute6.internal (compute6.nyi.internal [10.202.2.46]) by mailout.west.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id B277F516; Mon, 7 Oct 2019 14:59:29 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from mailfrontend1 ([10.202.2.162]) by compute6.internal (MEProxy); Mon, 07 Oct 2019 14:59:29 -0400
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=kFlIRNYOc93YaJ4/rm+eDkEpCDmUN0Vu+7XXzvgdp ZM=; b=TDFyFBbqUKchZqFVODPTCH1SGG4Q3W38d+cf3srEN+rIvez5peqXBhwUf VDF146TOx521n/zDucujwWRR+Z/pABOlpG0F2ZCTff3opxZtihw2RjjoHxZ8UozO QkzkG2noFL5MOtfSvLTvo6s8+q1EIaoLtBQP8cUdUr8EihjPlfgs4ZbnxpGfZVXV VpQ79iyQr48q2pUSoeunUuOtT3h+/BKYb9l6KJ505cAoUkDb9wli+pP16M8Habso drt3tK9TqbCOlj7hTQ9aMcTUVY+UmGvm4KqG88P7XXq2mhPE0tYegqJPcJaKgiOz i9lr/j0IAXUghRtKsUVnaQWPU2kqQ==
X-ME-Sender: <xms:EIubXbZ0Nt2JE28HO_rw-4p4Cesf6-cFL3pnxKXGJJLQoEG7PN8y6Q>
X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedufedrheejgdduudelucetufdoteggodetrfdotf fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfqfgfvpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgen uceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucesvcftvggtihhpihgvnhhtshculddquddttddmne cujfgurheptggguffhofgjfffgkfhfvfesthhqmhdthhdtvdenucfhrhhomhepmfgvihht hhcuofhoohhrvgcuoehmohhorhgvsehnvghtfihorhhkqdhhvghrvghtihgtshdrtghomh eqnecukfhppeelledrvddtfedrfedvrdefnecurfgrrhgrmhepmhgrihhlfhhrohhmpehm ohhorhgvsehnvghtfihorhhkqdhhvghrvghtihgtshdrtghomhenucevlhhushhtvghruf hiiigvpedt
X-ME-Proxy: <xmx:EIubXeoq-Cm3cV7Eml2fPwjywL5kgQzSFM8S4NJLKYtLsr2APY4dig> <xmx:EIubXY9umxKQGtIq4R7rE9izTPKZ6Xb6MxKr3iW6uB75U5--xokjGg> <xmx:EIubXV-WVY4eWNOG-kXDdLdZAmhdgbb8z0yBMKkoQiQtXN9WJWBqgQ> <xmx:EYubXUkzdSAzSBFExjgmfGfeMqS0BFJ3IE_BudohT6zaxmAvHif6xA>
Received: from [29.64.168.4] (ip-99-203-32-3.pools.cgn.spcsdns.net [99.203.32.3]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 5B4A58005C; Mon, 7 Oct 2019 14:59:28 -0400 (EDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
From: Keith Moore <moore@network-heretics.com>
X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (16F203)
In-Reply-To: <20191007162824.64ED8BB6CA1@ary.qy>
Date: Mon, 07 Oct 2019 14:59:26 -0400
Cc: ietf-smtp@ietf.org
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <53D231EA-D749-4437-9759-6F1B3ECC6142@network-heretics.com>
References: <20191007162824.64ED8BB6CA1@ary.qy>
To: John Levine <johnl@taugh.com>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-smtp/d-jdtdIUAEBkD2kqfBMpoYQzsxc>
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 18:59:33 -0000

> On Oct 7, 2019, at 12:28 PM, John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> wrote:
> 
> In article <948b775a-8191-8ab9-af09-28e89f7fc33b@network-heretics.com> you write:
>> Clearly you can't trust the resolver.  But an answer to a DoT query to 
>> an authoritative server seems like it would be sufficient, provided 
>> there's assurance that the server really is authoritative.
> 
> There's no such thing as a DoT query to an authoritative server (or
> DoH for that matter.)  At this point you can only set up DoT by
> private arrangement with your resolver.
> 
> 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.

Keith

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email