IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Hector Santos <hsantos@isdg.net> Thu, 02 January 2020 14:56 UTC

Return-Path: <hsantos@isdg.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 4C62312008D for <ietf-smtp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 2 Jan 2020 06:56:55 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.001
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.001 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=isdg.net header.b=J22dAs3l; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=beta.winserver.com header.b=cEWdEtum
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 lZcshyCwiGkK for <ietf-smtp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 2 Jan 2020 06:56:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.winserver.com (dkim.winserver.com [76.245.57.69]) (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 5D40512004F for <ietf-smtp@ietf.org>; Thu, 2 Jan 2020 06:56:53 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; d=isdg.net; s=tms1; a=rsa-sha1; c=simple/relaxed; l=932; t=1577977004; atps=ietf.org; atpsh=sha1; h=Received:Received:Received:Received:Message-ID:Date:From: Organization:To:Subject:List-ID; bh=4tP8n/jP+oSoKr22W/PqI/2PX2M=; b=J22dAs3lAY7xsSyhOuSD98QvW01XqqDgRHGk/cC5xomiQv37j9Vw/N4LKZVDqZ ohvu3XulDtSCsVvPf7XMA7sJu+urqaIn8OVUmx6Me37OczSc94AAXaVa8h157FCx vRnkvDwud1WCGZQxLf37h2XCsls/tL0AcLg1L17woyaIE=
Received: by winserver.com (Wildcat! SMTP Router v8.0.454.9) for ietf-smtp@ietf.org; Thu, 02 Jan 2020 09:56:44 -0500
Authentication-Results: dkim.winserver.com; dkim=pass header.d=beta.winserver.com header.s=tms1 header.i=beta.winserver.com; dmarc=pass policy=reject author.d=isdg.net signer.d=beta.winserver.com (atps signer);
Received: from beta.winserver.com ([76.245.57.74]) by winserver.com (Wildcat! SMTP v8.0.454.9) with ESMTP id 1589371406.1.8164; Thu, 02 Jan 2020 09:56:43 -0500
DKIM-Signature: v=1; d=beta.winserver.com; s=tms1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/relaxed; l=932; t=1577976823; h=Received:Received: Message-ID:Date:From:Organization:To:Subject:List-ID; bh=nXP6rg0 D8psYu+APez2+T1m84QwWVZpE/12TDc5ea0E=; b=cEWdEtumb0lQZM39hsfkLde h/r7tRBPzwRTwRtG9IOud/lZR8SqkrOTvhf/MtqekOC6eF1kZvkuA8dE6+CWpkDV 8zn7USwHFcg2el1hzIJzWVblgXAk2oTusv94mbAHBOjIdkPoHh51bCnrftxEDXRg 7QoG4FTvLECeLYxOTxCw=
Received: by beta.winserver.com (Wildcat! SMTP Router v8.0.454.9) for ietf-smtp@ietf.org; Thu, 02 Jan 2020 09:53:43 -0500
Received: from [192.168.1.68] ([75.26.216.248]) by beta.winserver.com (Wildcat! SMTP v8.0.454.9) with ESMTP id 2152003281.1.1516; Thu, 02 Jan 2020 09:53:42 -0500
Message-ID: <5E0E04AA.5070408@isdg.net>
Date: Thu, 02 Jan 2020 09:56:42 -0500
From: Hector Santos <hsantos@isdg.net>
Reply-To: hsantos@isdg.net
Organization: Santronics Software, Inc.
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.8.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: ietf-smtp@ietf.org
References: <20200101175510.8549A11E2905@ary.qy> <D441E0BE-1F32-4329-9296-A5026540E8D0@dukhovni.org> <994e7a23-9e80-4751-6067-8863ad0ee72f@network-heretics.com> <2Iq+URBKeODeFANB@highwayman.com>
In-Reply-To: <2Iq+URBKeODeFANB@highwayman.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-smtp/zsx61SIpbh9gXlKDZq-uyWi9YI4>
Subject: Re: [ietf-smtp] Possible contribution 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 14:56:56 -0000

On 1/1/2020 1:40 PM, Richard Clayton wrote:

> We cannot prescribe whether a receiver is going to accept email, you can
> merely state what the correct protocol is for the transfer and for
> efficient signaling of accept/reject decisions.

+1.

We am supportive of focusing on SMTP compliancy fine tuning. The 
administrative local policy stuff, while all good to know, good for an 
Informational Status doc, but not a BCP, nor for RFC5321bis PS work, 
it would be never ending with extremely rough positions.  If some 
local sites decide to reject IP-literals based on decision that 
contains bias so be it, they will deal with the false positives, but 
it is not SMTP.

We should double down on HELO/EHLO IP-literal correct syntax and 
definition.

However, I might be supportive of a relaxation of the field definition 
so that EHLO only basically functions as a server/client capabilities 
negotiation.


-- 
HLS

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email