IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [ietf-smtp] Request for discussion of Mandatory Secure Mail Delivery proposal (draft-wchuang-msmd)

SM <sm@resistor.net> Fri, 18 October 2013 00:52 UTC

Return-Path: <sm@resistor.net>
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 04ACA11E82D9 for <ietf-smtp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 17 Oct 2013 17:52:41 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.694
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.694 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.041, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, HOST_MISMATCH_NET=0.311, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ya1T0RnEOy9Z for <ietf-smtp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 17 Oct 2013 17:52:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx.elandsys.com (ns1.qubic.net [208.69.177.116]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 30CE711E82BF for <ietf-smtp@ietf.org>; Thu, 17 Oct 2013 17:52:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from SUBMAN.resistor.net (IDENT:sm@localhost [127.0.0.1]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r9I0piYJ026143; Thu, 17 Oct 2013 17:51:47 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=opendkim.org; s=mail2010; t=1382057529; bh=ps4R36iKKcY/hSjNvN5KPlbdq490DMoyzN+jbV4jL2s=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=NaN41VzcZ07T0wImrL7s0iiC0ZtLjI/N5SkMs2kmbPfbwRHTSalT9JbxdLcQkG8ea ICaIznBLLYpWvcgHGlY0LVC0MRs2JJlopUZZ5qQxIQmg7+hS5r9HxbZ+vRRXWc42G7 5eu8W8aoUFErWga4Sf3eNvzn/+F0ZhljfV9xB700=
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=resistor.net; s=mail; t=1382057529; i=@resistor.net; bh=ps4R36iKKcY/hSjNvN5KPlbdq490DMoyzN+jbV4jL2s=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=suhDPU58iziaD1Sh9AN2G30Yl965OSnkZ9asbR1CTveHDit/C2vtfZQTCeXIb1607 m+hj4buq33EpIkmSGf3fLskOX7oru8WdfxTZu+Y8yAwKL/R1mjo4+n54NKHJFqraGQ iq4Hx5XbSUha6QzalG47CFAEUoueq6Riny58F9ww=
Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20131017155958.06b381f8@resistor.net>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6
Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2013 17:48:48 -0700
To: Wei Chuang <weihaw@google.com>
From: SM <sm@resistor.net>
In-Reply-To: <CAAFsWK153103Lm5+EgBvtjq3UE_2xD3hpgmi+9GbxzQcnpgTXw@mail.g mail.com>
References: <CAAFsWK1OROeda-=Ov9pGs=TpeDcxm=d6MDKVxw4Vi6X4LxWLYw@mail.gmail.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20131016071940.0b9e5ca0@resistor.net> <CAAFsWK153103Lm5+EgBvtjq3UE_2xD3hpgmi+9GbxzQcnpgTXw@mail.gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Cc: mandatory-secure-mail-delivery-external <mandatory-secure-mail-delivery-external@google.com>, ietf-smtp@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [ietf-smtp] Request for discussion of Mandatory Secure Mail Delivery proposal (draft-wchuang-msmd)
X-BeenThere: ietf-smtp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Fri, 18 Oct 2013 00:52:41 -0000

Hi Wei,
At 10:02 17-10-2013, Wei Chuang wrote:
>Agreed this was useful to look at.  Was the I-D for RFC 6710 
>discussed on this mailing list? or if you happen to know the I-D 
>name, I can try to search for it. The discussions would be interesting.

The I-D name is draft-melnikov-smtp-priority.  It was discussed on 
apps-discuss@ietf.org.  There is a (previous) thread at 
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg72179.html

>If this is a pattern, I wonder if a common platform could be built 
>to support specifying behavior at mail delivery and having the 
>propagate along with the message and derivatives?  This is what this 
>proposal is trying to do for the more specific mail delivery security context.

It's an interesting question.  I'll comment below.

>I would answer with something wishy washy like "more safe".

That's a step forward.  This is a quick thought.  I would explore 
"hand-off of responsibility".

Regards,
-sm

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email