Return-Path: 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 4C93312D4ED for ; Tue, 8 Jan 2019 17:24:32 -0800 (PST) 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, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=dombox.org 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 oFAOTqcQBbT2 for ; Tue, 8 Jan 2019 17:24:30 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-yw1-xc2d.google.com (mail-yw1-xc2d.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::c2d]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 369EA124408 for ; Tue, 8 Jan 2019 17:24:30 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-yw1-xc2d.google.com with SMTP id t13so2335602ywe.13 for ; Tue, 08 Jan 2019 17:24:30 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=dombox.org; s=default; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=vruwvYa/t87dc4HXdM3hFjv/RcyCjz9ujkVye46CE8c=; b=F+ylD18x+5g7wwRpkodAeRSkVcaxWoZWbmNIO/TQwmUmtyhOA2Skl3RPNrfmQtFQSj Zy+SMEqokQ5yelnmAbehjyuv+YzwESSH6gFSk1nter8m4+jRo41flVpBA287R5JhRuQ8 0G2QM93iXJ1g6lhgsCV0vQV3kGLTPxKdmrvev0VpdsYB2PUTglKl92hHMzr67YENy6Hy DivTxMXwfdUCWpOz1DksoUO5DHCgWSgL+yMgEJ9ieP3JVSPGHZXo+DA4rw5EzHc9U2yq beOBhfrOijE9/59PnzUZEjdWXVpDUm+MDW/fSvAoeAnHsM/m86QAwVYdNI72+Hzi3h4o DRjQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=vruwvYa/t87dc4HXdM3hFjv/RcyCjz9ujkVye46CE8c=; b=Zb3IIzgzvwaE2FsXJWSnoscTRlLB9RWuxoES1yhtlMWNZExzm/dPXCm32vU5f/bjZW OI+d6R45CDTnBACEf2vZPfjeNpPKATspNB5/B4V3EeiQpMerwi2uhG+hLZboYQhCKIkM ONTgzma0uY30vAGJFMyyH0QQoAhFwUSeBIjvYlu2OichhRDHpi0UOEcLdmXnqxlj+VYq aev2jCgwI0mfrDywF2ahHt6s9cEtvGJosBsyENzknz735+0fEI51Z3QtXzsAJELWZYs9 CRWPlCJz6XACET60eFO6WvXQiYNfPRfxis08yKaaDFVMu/V9md/MdoClVWnr/1zFqHH2 1I9w== X-Gm-Message-State: AJcUukdtcOtlJiLNJJ9AyuEx5hFH0qi47qEI3LZbD3P9OJUxKaI6zwF+ V+aLP79htmbMGBJzrgZyQVUEqAk7wWWWDI4YlqqM8w== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ALg8bN5HmmMOor9iPo6mYFTJKguAlyS/8lotsfXKYuspjYqiOUMjZn7ylqBhjYRXGTnTErEYf2ZpAwpTma+xvPcf0v4= X-Received: by 2002:a81:2790:: with SMTP id n138mr3983662ywn.128.1546997069235; Tue, 08 Jan 2019 17:24:29 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20190107085807.GA9513@ams-1.poolp.org> <20190107111354.GA63927@ams-1.poolp.org> <9e5c4dd8-7acf-8da7-4d4e-9337ef6e6101@pscs.co.uk> <3742.1546968196@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> <1682ef40aa0.28d4.9bfe8bcc586ac955e423c0e3d5444448@pscs.co.uk> <18883.1546995312@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> <19952.1546996456@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> In-Reply-To: <19952.1546996456@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> From: Viruthagiri Thirumavalavan Date: Wed, 9 Jan 2019 06:54:16 +0530 Message-ID: To: valdis.kletnieks@vt.edu Cc: Ted Lemon , ietf-smtp@ietf.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000c7e8ef057efc5283" Archived-At: Subject: Re: [ietf-smtp] SMTP Over TLS on Port 26 - Implicit TLS Proposal 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 \(SMTP\) \[RFC 821, RFC 2821, RFC 5321\]" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 09 Jan 2019 01:24:32 -0000 --000000000000c7e8ef057efc5283 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" I just gave a pretty good example on why SMTPS better than STARTTLS. I'm not sure what else you are expecting from me. On Wed, Jan 9, 2019, 6:44 AM On Wed, 09 Jan 2019 06:31:19 +0530, Viruthagiri Thirumavalavan said: > > > *mail.example.com connecting to mail.yahoo.com > > with its IP address* > > *yahoo.com => 220 mail.yahoo.com < > http://mail.yahoo.com> > > Yahoo ESMTP Service Ready* > > *example.com => EHLO mail.example.com > > * > > *yahoo.com => 250-Hello, nice to meet you, > > mail.example.com * > > *yahoo.com => 250-SIZE 1000000* > > *yahoo.com => 250-8BITMIME* > > *yahoo.com => 250 STARTTLS* > > *example.com => STARTTLS* > > *yahoo.com => 220 Go ahead* > > *Key exchange happens here and the rest of the email part is encrypted * > > > > Are you saying all of those parts can be encrypted via DNSSEC+STARTTLS? > > What's in there that we didn't already know after the 3-packet handshake? > --000000000000c7e8ef057efc5283 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I just gave a pretty good example on why SMTPS better tha= n STARTTLS.

I'm not sure w= hat else you are expecting from me.

On Wed, Jan 9, 2019, 6:44 AM <valdis.kletnieks@vt.edu wrote:
On Wed, 09 Jan 2019 06:31:19 +0530, Viruthagiri Thiru= mavalavan said:

> *mail.example.com <http://mail.example.com> connecting to mail.yahoo.com
> <http://mail.yahoo.com> with its IP address*
> *yahoo.com <http://yahoo.com> =3D> 220 mai= l.yahoo.com <http://mail.yahoo.com>
> Yahoo ESMTP Service Ready*
> *example.com <http://example.com> =3D> EHLO= mail.example.com
> <http://mail.example.com>*
> *yahoo.com <http://yahoo.com> =3D> 250-Hello, nic= e to meet you,
> mail.example.com <http://mail.example.com= >*
> *yahoo.com <http://yahoo.com> =3D> 250-SIZE 10000= 00*
> *yahoo.com <http://yahoo.com> =3D> 250-8BITMIME*<= br> > *yahoo.com <http://yahoo.com> =3D> 250 STARTTLS*<= br> > *example.com <http://example.com> =3D> STAR= TTLS*
> *yahoo.com <http://yahoo.com> =3D> 220 Go ahead*<= br> > *Key exchange happens here and the rest of the email part is encrypted= *
>
> Are you saying all of those parts can be encrypted via DNSSEC+STARTTLS= ?

What's in there that we didn't already know after the 3-packet hand= shake?
--000000000000c7e8ef057efc5283--