Re: [ietf-smtp] EHLO domain validation requirement in RFC 5321

Sam Varshavchik <mrsam@courier-mta.com> Mon, 28 September 2020 00:13 UTC

Return-Path: <mrsam@courier-mta.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 DF3563A0475 for <ietf-smtp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 27 Sep 2020 17:13:44 -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 K0YeN3LXwzOM for <ietf-smtp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 27 Sep 2020 17:13:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailx.courier-mta.com (mailx.courier-mta.com [68.166.206.83]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B8D3A3A0412 for <ietf-smtp@ietf.org>; Sun, 27 Sep 2020 17:13:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from monster.email-scan.com (monster.email-scan.com [::ffff:192.168.0.2]) (TLS: TLSv1.3,256bits,TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) by www.courier-mta.com with UTF8ESMTPS id 00000000002C0020.000000005F712AB6.00004B9E; Sun, 27 Sep 2020 20:13:42 -0400
Received: from monster.email-scan.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (IDENT: uid 1004) by monster.email-scan.com with UTF8SMTP id 000000000001C7C3.000000005F712AB5.00008E96; Sun, 27 Sep 2020 20:13:41 -0400
References: <402e7482-394f-e077-48b9-c9e47047c49d@dcrocker.net> <55218bbd-b001-ae3f-1afd-e4328ec7ba35@network-heretics.com> <c6b5dae5-d20a-c876-ce5a-86e1d073cf8f@dcrocker.net> <c4a66db8-e3f5-3f6f-acb0-afe01a69a27a@network-heretics.com> <cone.1601250950.437858.35945.1004@monster.email-scan.com> <ac132a1a-ec83-1ec6-dd34-85fd3bba95c5@network-heretics.com>
Message-ID: <cone.1601252021.530626.35945.1004@monster.email-scan.com>
X-Mailer: http://www.courier-mta.org/cone/
From: Sam Varshavchik <mrsam@courier-mta.com>
To: ietf-smtp@ietf.org
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 2020 20:13:41 -0400
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Mime-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by mimegpg
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=_monster.email-scan.com-35945-1601252021-0002"; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-smtp/qBDMvfgMmuqBrzexU_N9lE6IcpA>
Subject: Re: [ietf-smtp] EHLO domain validation requirement in RFC 5321
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, 28 Sep 2020 00:13:45 -0000

Keith Moore writes:

>> Any "degradation due to spam filtering" is only due to the spam's existence  
>> itself. If there were no spam, there wouldn't be any spam filtering to  
>> degrade anything. Spam filtering is not a problem, it's a reaction to a  
>> problem.
>
> Emphatically disagree.   Anytime a legitimate message isn't delivered due to  
> spam filtering, the spam filtering IS the problem.
>
>>
>> Furthermore, nobody has any real standing to complain about anyone else's  
>> spam filtering.
>
> Emphatically disagree.  Users should have a reasonable expectation of having  
> their mail delivered without having to stand on their heads and beat a  
> syncopated rhythm with a walrus appendage on a skin drum during a full moon.

Anyone around here been on Usenet in the late 1990s, and remember this on- 
going flamewar, how spam filtering is detrimental, how everyone has an  
entitled right to have their email delivered, yadda yadda yadda?

That's what this reminds me of. I'm really getting a sense of deja vu here.

>> they object to. They won't have any effect. People will continue to use  
>> spam filtering methods that work for them, and not the ones that some other  
>> third party approves of, in some way.
>
> Irrelevant.   For the most part, "people" don't choose their spam filtering;  
> they have it imposed on them and often have zero control over it except to  
> try a different email address.

That was another frequent theme on news.admin.net-abuse.email, circa  
1990s – how people are suffering victims of their administrators' draconian  
spam filtering policies.

Well, those arguments weren't exactly widely accepted back then, and I don't  
think they're widely accepted now, either.