IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [ietf-smtp] ALPN

Claus Assmann <ietf-smtp@esmtp.org> Sat, 10 July 2021 05:41 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf-smtp@esmtp.org>
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 EA11F3A07F8 for <ietf-smtp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 9 Jul 2021 22:41:54 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.898
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.898 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=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 bGQXq1qiYhwj for <ietf-smtp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 9 Jul 2021 22:41:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from kiel.esmtp.org (kiel.esmtp.org [195.244.235.220]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 41EC53A07F3 for <ietf-smtp@ietf.org>; Fri, 9 Jul 2021 22:41:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from kiel.esmtp.org (localhost. [127.0.0.1]) by kiel.esmtp.org (MeTA1-1.1.Alpha16.0) with ESMTPS (TLS=TLSv1.2, cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384, bits=256, verify=OK) id S000000000006274200; Sat, 10 Jul 2021 07:41:51 +0200
Received: (from ca@localhost) by kiel.esmtp.org (8.16.0.41/8.12.10.Beta0/Submit) id 16A5fpc5060668 for ietf-smtp@ietf.org; Sat, 10 Jul 2021 07:41:51 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Sat, 10 Jul 2021 07:41:51 +0200
From: Claus Assmann <ietf-smtp@esmtp.org>
To: ietf-smtp@ietf.org
Message-ID: <20210710054151.GA45194@kiel.esmtp.org>
Reply-To: ietf-smtp@ietf.org
Mail-Followup-To: ietf-smtp@ietf.org
References: <85ce0c71-dbf6-7a32-cc11-8ef60e53adff@wizmail.org> <20210709025118.336761F030AF@ary.qy>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20210709025118.336761F030AF@ary.qy>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-smtp/zFZ6kq_64nejYiyUad0Nc7DFy_8>
Subject: Re: [ietf-smtp] ALPN
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: Sat, 10 Jul 2021 05:41:55 -0000

On Thu, Jul 08, 2021, John Levine wrote:

> Maybe we should request two, one for SMTP and one for SUBMIT.

Is it worth the hassle? What problem does that solve?  Isn't one
for SMTP enough to resolve the potential protocol attacks?

-- 
Address is valid for this mailing list only, please do not reply
to it direcly, but to the list.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email