IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [ietf-smtp] Possible cont4ibution to moving forward with RFC5321bis SMTP

Keith Moore <moore@network-heretics.com> Thu, 02 January 2020 17:18 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 E1CE6120112 for <ietf-smtp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 2 Jan 2020 09:18:09 -0800 (PST)
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 WdVeirn9tPxt for <ietf-smtp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 2 Jan 2020 09:18:08 -0800 (PST)
Received: from wout2-smtp.messagingengine.com (wout2-smtp.messagingengine.com [64.147.123.25]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D3A3E120045 for <ietf-smtp@ietf.org>; Thu, 2 Jan 2020 09:18:08 -0800 (PST)
Received: from compute6.internal (compute6.nyi.internal [10.202.2.46]) by mailout.west.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1B9FF55C; Thu, 2 Jan 2020 12:18:08 -0500 (EST)
Received: from mailfrontend2 ([10.202.2.163]) by compute6.internal (MEProxy); Thu, 02 Jan 2020 12:18:08 -0500
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=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=CCf8kLZtJJZI00coDExUjAlKU3RLuFw7td2nEMdyp 1E=; b=yWdFTHU1RjV2+6IN8Zvz9rmM79XWuP85TDdqrsAo6Z4YWsLGE7xYHiyLR aMM4dtGcLjJQ43OTJbjY/4a+/2wgEk9/Ve1LLNW1uVELTF3yav8CZwf2nHtcKQa3 2ZuEmTUDwEK35b47yKV40b2bLwCPAepN8PVDVJt2GLyoVF1ntBHxN98ShRvqAiJ2 vIjdzaGrSfkK/1zGQnHXD/UI84poxl48uDMNBcYu8iLTxQQ+CDk3ZhQAnY9cDXtb f+os9Est86/g4PJpQJLsFJCxicUjP7iRTXXZ1GvarVKV2IRF7iW6+IETInngW2ja SaqAk+U3USfaQQT+CjoCTYTzJb5zQ==
X-ME-Sender: <xms:zyUOXiHw3gcMCyC8VDOGlftW8aCf6QsaS2kAfnKBqj_LR6-gjSR3kA>
X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedufedrvdeguddguddttdcutefuodetggdotefrod ftvfcurfhrohhfihhlvgemucfhrghsthforghilhdpqfgfvfdpuffrtefokffrpgfnqfgh necuuegrihhlohhuthemuceftddtnecunecujfgurhepuffvfhfhkffffgggjggtgfesth ejredttdefjeenucfhrhhomhepmfgvihhthhcuofhoohhrvgcuoehmohhorhgvsehnvght fihorhhkqdhhvghrvghtihgtshdrtghomheqnecukfhppedutdekrddvvddurddukedtrd duheenucfrrghrrghmpehmrghilhhfrhhomhepmhhoohhrvgesnhgvthifohhrkhdqhhgv rhgvthhitghsrdgtohhmnecuvehluhhsthgvrhfuihiivgeptd
X-ME-Proxy: <xmx:zyUOXvrQwGMH5J6mjcIyx-CkP5OunyoOkP_9MEtCTXs2DxtK6JsEvw> <xmx:zyUOXu6fUDYePpleRjV33U298YEBOnMuF377AK79WaHT_eW-pGbi8g> <xmx:zyUOXt6L_zuyrm9MxSBhICRppqux5ocZFDszNMOhJ_2E_yhjCpazyw> <xmx:zyUOXly6iH5p4lA7NnhW1mb8v1Jtbik6iJKNwv5IGQJic08nsUIQnQ>
Received: from [192.168.1.97] (108-221-180-15.lightspeed.knvltn.sbcglobal.net [108.221.180.15]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 2021930607BB; Thu, 2 Jan 2020 12:18:05 -0500 (EST)
To: ietf-smtp@ietf.org
References: <20191230013034.2C3E111D376E@ary.qy> <f894c448-ac91-6d27-98d6-0803de4ea535@network-heretics.com> <alpine.OSX.2.21.99999.374.1912292129450.44159@ary.qy> <d3dc48b0-332b-c2fe-704a-d6dc69eb5424@network-heretics.com> <5E0B8658.2060703@isdg.net> <fc8d4d71-39a4-6ca0-608a-d2113b206c5f@network-heretics.com> <5E0E10AF.30808@isdg.net>
From: Keith Moore <moore@network-heretics.com>
Message-ID: <3a106d9d-7be9-f6d4-b6e6-0103372ae227@network-heretics.com>
Date: Thu, 02 Jan 2020 12:18:04 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.9.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <5E0E10AF.30808@isdg.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Language: en-US
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-smtp/mEQLq5DfmpH3Vg6LXbmtvnTaM_w>
Subject: Re: [ietf-smtp] Possible cont4ibution to moving forward with RFC5321bis SMTP
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: Thu, 02 Jan 2020 17:18:10 -0000

On 1/2/20 10:47 AM, Hector Santos wrote:

>
> With hosted end-users, the false positives seen with NATs has been 
> addressed with the SUBMIT protocol or some other client authentication 
> that raised the SMTP bar and allowed for receiver restrictions. 

In these days of complete IPv4 address space exhaustion, it can not be 
safely assumed that there is no NAT between the MSA and the MX SMTP server.

Keith

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email