Re: Submission identifiers
David MacQuigg <david_macquigg@yahoo.com> Tue, 27 January 2009 02:25 UTC
Received: from balder-227.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id n0R2PP7f046661 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 26 Jan 2009 19:25:25 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-smtp@mail.imc.org)
Received: (from majordom@localhost) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.13.5/Submit) id n0R2PPlb046660; Mon, 26 Jan 2009 19:25:25 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-smtp@mail.imc.org)
X-Authentication-Warning: balder-227.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-smtp@mail.imc.org using -f
Received: from smtp101.prem.mail.sp1.yahoo.com (smtp101.prem.mail.sp1.yahoo.com [98.136.44.56]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with SMTP id n0R2PEx7046646 for <ietf-smtp@imc.org>; Mon, 26 Jan 2009 19:25:24 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from david_macquigg@yahoo.com)
Received: (qmail 65028 invoked from network); 27 Jan 2009 02:25:13 -0000
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com; h=Received:X-YMail-OSG:X-Yahoo-Newman-Property:Message-Id:X-Sender:X-Mailer:Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Mime-Version:Content-Type; b=CmCt7YYIoJxt8W3ZrgfWBIcBRELRRbTAFzX7KAWpjzq7UkPeKmPvlPChQB0ZgNsDpaT0Ql0nCn/Ny3Okp9bsiq4wlTABEn6u70w4qqnshD1mSfCWb/PgLMVQhqHFyBs5ZGbJwx7JpUxMomBQSDklXDMHCb47KpJ6LAwmXFI7POM= ;
Received: from unknown (HELO phred.yahoo.com) (david_macquigg@69.9.25.232 with login) by smtp101.prem.mail.sp1.yahoo.com with SMTP; 27 Jan 2009 02:25:11 -0000
X-YMail-OSG: Tf8VX6YVM1nt0ojeCd2aCgDro7kpTgRXTgW0_iz9K1cCfwsBZA_1v88SDJRswmlt7FM1MRXjzXLRI69n0j7P6duuZzYOHnslR6sCiRzIuspcLcGHXKJfGJX9UQU.UWGCWrOC753xpXXK59XD6ftN61d.
X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3
Message-Id: <5.2.1.1.0.20090126071740.03ed3fb0@plus.pop.mail.yahoo.com>
X-Sender: david_macquigg@plus.pop.mail.yahoo.com
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.1
Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2009 19:25:10 -0700
To: Paul Smith <paul@pscs.co.uk>
From: David MacQuigg <david_macquigg@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Submission identifiers
Cc: ietf-smtp@imc.org
In-Reply-To: <497D8756.5030306@pscs.co.uk>
References: <51104ACCD26E8167A1B3981E@PST.JCK.COM> <4979D903.1060705@pscs.co.uk> <E5EF288BD222F5BA20C735BD@PST.JCK.COM> <497980AA.2060706@es2eng.com> <C4ZHRHThnSMjwwDOZ03z0w.md5@lochnagar.oryx.com> <4979B5F2.9010102@pscs.co.uk> <WBwvOp9JIdw2SWc1HYscRg.md5@lochnagar.oryx.com> <4979D903.1060705@pscs.co.uk> <5.2.1.1.0.20090123140212.03ed3fb0@plus.pop.mail.yahoo.com> <51104ACCD26E8167A1B3981E@PST.JCK.COM>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Sender: owner-ietf-smtp@mail.imc.org
Precedence: bulk
List-Archive: <http://www.imc.org/ietf-smtp/mail-archive/>
List-ID: <ietf-smtp.imc.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-smtp-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe>
At 09:50 AM 1/26/2009 +0000, Paul Smith wrote: >I have a 'common' situation in mind. Whether you like it or not, it is >common enough. >There is a small business who has bought Microsoft SBS. They are running >Microsoft Exchange with the POP3 connector over a dynamic IP ADSL. They >have Exchange set up for direct sending, with fallback to their ISP's >smarthost. They don't want to change to always use their ISP's smarthost >because that has long delays in sending. > >What are they supposed to use for the EHLO parameter if it is important >enough to mean the difference between delivery or not? This is a good case. I think we can include Steve's example as a sub-case, since he has a static IP address from his ISP. The solutions in this case include the three suggested for the roaming laptop, plus another option. Get a static IP address from your ISP. In my office I have a small network behind a NAT with one external address. My ISP charges $10 per month for the static IP. Last I checked, the phone company price was the same. By the way, I don't use my static IP for sending mail. For reliable delivery, I relay my outgoing mail through a Giant Provider, not because of authentication problems, but simply that my domain is too small to have any clout with receivers. I spent several hours negotiating with just one Giant Provider to get on their whitelist. The change I am suggesting will make it easier for small companies to establish their identity, build a good reputation, and operate their own transmitters. That may be one reason we haven't seen a solution to the identity fraud problem. The Giant Providers like the status quo. I guess this discussion has about run its course, so I'll summarize. We've narrowed the question to just whether SMTP should drop the requirement that receivers MUST NOT reject apparently forged helonames. The suggested language for a change was: An SMTP server MAY reject a mail session if a domain name argument in the EHLO command does not actually correspond to the IP address of the client. Clients that are unable to establish this correspondence MUST NOT provide an invalid domain name argument. The claimed benefit was that a currently useless and frequently abused parameter, the heloname, could then become useful in rejecting forgeries, and that would motivate legitimate senders to take it seriously. This in turn could lead to large numbers of receivers making good use of the heloname, whitelisting legitimate domains, etc. Eventually almost all legitimate mail would go this route, and only a small fraction would have to go through a spam filter, reducing losses, and improving the reliability of email communications. The claimed reason for not making this change was that it would be too hard on some small fraction of legitimate senders. Three cases were presented. 1) The small office with a dynamically-assigned IP address. 2) The roaming laptop. 3) The digital camera. The solutions considered too difficult were: 1) Get a static IP address for the transmitter in the small office. 2) Relay through a transmitter with an established identity and reputation. 3) Authorize the entire block of addresses that might be dynamically assigned to the transmitter. 4) Use an address literal, meaning - please accept this session without a HELO ID. Have I missed anything? -- Dave
- Re: RFC 5321bis / 2821ter Alessandro Vesely
- Re: RFC 5321bis / 2821ter John C Klensin
- Re: RFC 5321bis / 2821ter Alessandro Vesely
- Re: RFC 5321bis / 2821ter John C Klensin
- Re: RFC 5321bis / 2821ter David MacQuigg
- Re: RFC 5321bis / 2821ter Paul Smith
- Re: RFC 5321bis / 2821ter John C Klensin
- Re: RFC 5321bis / 2821ter Alessandro Vesely
- Re: RFC 5321bis / 2821ter Paul Smith
- Re: RFC 5321bis / 2821ter Hector Santos
- Re: RFC 5321bis / 2821ter Paul Smith
- Re: RFC 5321bis / 2821ter Alessandro Vesely
- Re: RFC 5321bis / 2821ter Paul Smith
- Re: RFC 5321bis / 2821ter Paul Smith
- Re: RFC 5321bis / 2821ter Hector Santos
- Re: RFC 5321bis / 2821ter Alessandro Vesely
- Re: RFC 5321bis / 2821ter Paul Smith
- Re: RFC 5321bis / 2821ter Alessandro Vesely
- Re: RFC 5321bis / 2821ter Hector Santos
- Re: RFC 5321bis / 2821ter Mark Andrews
- Re: RFC 5321bis / 2821ter SM
- Re: RFC 5321bis / 2821ter Paul Smith
- Re: RFC 5321bis / 2821ter John C Klensin
- Re: Submission identifiers John Leslie
- Re: RFC 5321bis / 2821ter Hector Santos
- Re: RFC 5321bis / 2821ter Alex van den Bogaerdt
- Re: RFC 5321bis / 2821ter Paul Smith
- Re: RFC 5321bis / 2821ter Tony Finch
- Re: RFC 5321bis / 2821ter Paul Smith
- Re: RFC 5321bis / 2821ter Tony Finch
- Re: RFC 5321bis / 2821ter Paul Smith
- Re: RFC 5321bis / 2821ter Alessandro Vesely
- Re: Submission identifiers Paul Smith
- Re: RFC 5321bis / 2821ter Paul Smith
- Re: Submission identifiers John C Klensin
- Re: Submission identifiers Steve Atkins
- Re: Submission identifiers David MacQuigg
- Re: RFC 5321bis / 2821ter Tony Finch
- Re: RFC 5321bis / 2821ter Jeff Macdonald
- Re: RFC 5321bis / 2821ter Jeff Macdonald
- Re: RFC 5321bis / 2821ter SM
- Re: Submission identifiers Alessandro Vesely
- Re: RFC 5321bis / 2821ter Paul Smith
- Re: Submission identifiers John Leslie
- Re: RFC 5321bis / 2821ter Steve Atkins
- Re: RFC 5321bis / 2821ter David MacQuigg
- Re: Submission identifiers John C Klensin
- Re: Submission identifiers Alessandro Vesely
- Re: Submission identifiers Arnt Gulbrandsen
- Re: Submission identifiers SM
- Re: Submission identifiers David MacQuigg
- Re: Submission identifiers John C Klensin
- Re: RFC 5321bis / 2821ter John C Klensin
- Re: Submission identifiers Alessandro Vesely
- Re: RFC 5321bis / 2821ter Alex van den Bogaerdt
- Re: RFC 5321bis / 2821ter David MacQuigg
- Re: RFC 5321bis / 2821ter John C Klensin
- Submission identifiers (was: Re: RFC 5321bis / 28… John C Klensin
- Re: RFC 5321bis / 2821ter David MacQuigg
- Re: RFC 5321bis / 2821ter Alessandro Vesely
- Re: RFC 5321bis / 2821ter John C Klensin
- Re: RFC 5321bis / 2821ter Paul Smith
- Re: RFC 5321bis / 2821ter John C Klensin
- Re: RFC 5321bis / 2821ter SM
- Re: RFC 5321bis / 2821ter Arnt Gulbrandsen
- Re: RFC 5321bis / 2821ter Matti Aarnio
- Re: RFC 5321bis / 2821ter Arnt Gulbrandsen
- Re: RFC 5321bis / 2821ter Matti Aarnio
- Re: RFC 5321bis / 2821ter Alessandro Vesely
- Re: RFC 5321bis / 2821ter Paul Smith
- Re: RFC 5321bis / 2821ter Arnt Gulbrandsen
- Re: RFC 5321bis / 2821ter Arnt Gulbrandsen
- Re: RFC 5321bis / 2821ter Willie Gillespie
- RFC 5321bis / 2821ter John C Klensin