Re: [ietf-smtp] DSNs

Valdis Kl ē tnieks <valdis.kletnieks@vt.edu> Mon, 27 April 2020 01:04 UTC

Return-Path: <valdis@vt.edu>
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 1A4FF3A08EA for <ietf-smtp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 26 Apr 2020 18:04:32 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-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 J3UpkrMwWz9u for <ietf-smtp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 26 Apr 2020 18:04:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from omr1.cc.vt.edu (omr1.cc.ipv6.vt.edu [IPv6:2607:b400:92:8300:0:c6:2117:b0e]) (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 788333A08E9 for <ietf-smtp@ietf.org>; Sun, 26 Apr 2020 18:04:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mr2.cc.vt.edu (mr2.cc.vt.edu [IPv6:2607:b400:92:8400:0:90:e077:bf22]) by omr1.cc.vt.edu (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id 03R14SUd022756 for <ietf-smtp@ietf.org>; Sun, 26 Apr 2020 21:04:29 -0400
Received: from mail-qv1-f72.google.com (mail-qv1-f72.google.com [209.85.219.72]) by mr2.cc.vt.edu (8.14.7/8.14.7) with ESMTP id 03R14Nxe011463 for <ietf-smtp@ietf.org>; Sun, 26 Apr 2020 21:04:28 -0400
Received: by mail-qv1-f72.google.com with SMTP id ck5so16843654qvb.18 for <ietf-smtp@ietf.org>; Sun, 26 Apr 2020 18:04:28 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:sender:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:content-transfer-encoding:date:message-id; bh=pBaHvNu4FoSuZ4wl7pL5NcCncAtHTZe+WerACPv+8eg=; b=O4YRYtu0fag7nxd80ZEFQKDtbnpJD+v4KRKr7Ob8/bD2Eopi2u2R8EfrhxWygOUOsd 4SG35lFKY6dIyQE3nfT22KCQrlWb8XMN0icJV/sZBlbIlZbrXKLPcqmiBQPXHVDO2RfH WKS9rlXNG9qpTTdz82pSUHrBipySRhsRgduagFaT08JNBSiZv4TBhnV5j20f0LIHkcOa SJcGgYVvSezOgj2Prt2We/XA9ZR8R9acQI2TNTgKPZiPthGNv/dTYFAEyb9ju4uONV22 PP6tsK3qsu8qtERABQ9uWT/96QAFSsfEABYbxFkSLjpbolLPq76stdOHqpKm9C1FxOVi Tghw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AGi0PuYQIdKxSsGtXwJzxLSFYrOYPxxllSpRVLnTrAVXOzaV+tS32bw7 v9B7EIHfcq8YZBeUjWxN+ai99XgsC0lOEqIY1liF0XPRbmpiG9o1BS5zh+Rq2UqR08CIu0DBnwv 6P1xPfSmOQ+9LW9tcMyNvrw==
X-Received: by 2002:a37:9b01:: with SMTP id d1mr19321422qke.319.1587949463036; Sun, 26 Apr 2020 18:04:23 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APiQypI4ZL79OrZKkbCfYwLljX0+QowDBa1kb9FE9JItve+c+oiYQSjbnCkk+ommmLfOFFB+VGkJXg==
X-Received: by 2002:a37:9b01:: with SMTP id d1mr19321400qke.319.1587949462697; Sun, 26 Apr 2020 18:04:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from turing-police ([2601:5c0:c001:c9e1::359]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id w42sm9226283qtj.63.2020.04.26.18.04.20 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Sun, 26 Apr 2020 18:04:21 -0700 (PDT)
Sender: Valdis Kletnieks <valdis@vt.edu>
From: "Valdis Kl=?utf-8?Q?=c4=93?=tnieks" <valdis.kletnieks@vt.edu>
X-Google-Original-From: "Valdis Kl=?utf-8?Q?=c4=93?=tnieks" <Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu>
X-Mailer: exmh version 2.9.0 11/07/2018 with nmh-1.7+dev
To: Scott Kitterman <sklist@kitterman.com>
Cc: ietf-smtp@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <18283689.H6AGmmZv0G@sk-desktop>
References: <20200409230011.F039B17637D0@ary.qy> <01RK5UDUPC5W000058@mauve.mrochek.com> <147574.1587938016@turing-police> <18283689.H6AGmmZv0G@sk-desktop>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="==_Exmh_1587949459_5783P"; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Date: Sun, 26 Apr 2020 21:04:20 -0400
Message-ID: <160112.1587949460@turing-police>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-smtp/dHsH9vYCtE4_Z_vvhwPVLdmWmZQ>
Subject: Re: [ietf-smtp] DSNs
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, 27 Apr 2020 01:04:33 -0000

On Sun, 26 Apr 2020 17:59:18 -0400, Scott Kitterman said:

> > The other big problem is that even if we chunk out an RFC that clarifies
> > that they *can* pick-and-choose which DSN events to react to on a case by
> > case basis, it's still going to take a decade before people actually do
> > something about it.
>
> I think that's backwards.  People already have done something about it and do
> pick and choose.  The question is if and how we should align standards to that
> reality.

I was unclear.. I meant specifically the "We turned it off because we thought that's
what we had to do to comply" crowd.   Once it gets in config files, it's there *forever*.

(Not SMTP, but demonstrating the problem - I had an IP address for an AIX
workstation on my desk that was running a stratum-2 NTP server. That IP address
was removed from the clocks.txt file in late 1998, and went permanently offline
in June 1999 when we moved from "workstations on desks doing servers" to proper
rack-mounted boxes with all the bells and whistles.

In July 2018, a test over 6 hours found 501 machines that *still* thought that IP
address was a good place to send NTP requests...   Gaak.)