IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: IETF mail server and SSLv3

Phillip Hallam-Baker <phill@hallambaker.com> Fri, 05 February 2016 17:04 UTC

Return-Path: <hallam@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 22E701B3BA8 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 5 Feb 2016 09:04:37 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.278
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.278 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=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 oli24dR1q5HH for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 5 Feb 2016 09:04:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-lb0-x22e.google.com (mail-lb0-x22e.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c04::22e]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 672FD1B3BA5 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 5 Feb 2016 09:04:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-lb0-x22e.google.com with SMTP id dx2so53153767lbd.3 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 05 Feb 2016 09:04:35 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject :from:to:cc:content-type; bh=61f8HBRhYmRCeWoOSFEYkbdl5/VrOlpscLiOGWVKSdw=; b=bvaDc0qdV98H37Hx4rgkU0IV6EnH3woZWNC0LyK85Xoi4eHtE44lAiIk8A6CRNZXS7 7/u2lMNWveGOINm0Y9RLWMboEj814zRGzeqIKJ20AmSrh92eMk5xo3b5QvsKJR/R7/tC xd6Jq3lN1CU6ohpL+VV5Yzuu/u6i53cAkjvj9pu2N1xbBBtG7HsQKMBxFkKTaoQKwTUr jOglyS4Do9MQwGBXaQN2BoLTaXGXU/xRMujmvg79CUyA1srhKnoZBPEsX1kgSHjEhWJt 6+DLQ1bWNmo5+pNtQT4rMGpjNLXJOttmknS7SRkI6zLP6FfiCnba3sB0Bp8nu4P4rv3o FpQA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=61f8HBRhYmRCeWoOSFEYkbdl5/VrOlpscLiOGWVKSdw=; b=GF0A6hcD7zebwpmhq7uUr0DBdl6bYubkHdoEvBCh1V7DWMboiwqRbNEWZQbzJxu8t0 rKUVwwId417UoJl8vsJu5gv4aGQvY1i1BHuOvtgtcrXGWeHsXTQkF6TqCz8hAwonpX4J XjULhcvDpncsQSlzfmXXHXwbnEmrfpQbXH4CfvxcSp001nzcQMmzY6v8y6xTTnRYsixq hh+k6SvpPu1ZJQ4chCYyKqQ4V3AaCDyherywJqMQeaggBuvoaUHXW6GdacRgWcB7rMLw krzj7XiilDuCaB2z9ofklJyzAFdm8MRc4lAnNmolx3zs4cNUqo060jurDcz7/3G6VHaA 2o9w==
X-Gm-Message-State: AG10YOS73IR6Eg3l4IKVAQLuIAZCmH8Fpl3FyBdAjLBeqVDv+VeM3eh1mzvQzwxhnpNL9F0a0Gpdv7nKOECIdQ==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.112.166.100 with SMTP id zf4mr6439218lbb.58.1454691873641; Fri, 05 Feb 2016 09:04:33 -0800 (PST)
Sender: hallam@gmail.com
Received: by 10.112.49.80 with HTTP; Fri, 5 Feb 2016 09:04:33 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <01PWBHG6VXRM00008P@mauve.mrochek.com>
References: <F38A9FEF-7DBB-4F40-860E-6CB425E5EEE3@ietf.org> <sjmvb66r1st.fsf@securerf.ihtfp.org> <20160204024001.GM19242@mournblade.imrryr.org> <C9624BB55C713BCF83E4A552@7AD4D3FB4841A5E367CCF211> <08CEE02F-74DF-4C5E-A116-AB66FD8516FA@dukhovni.org> <01PWAPWAKLJI00008P@mauve.mrochek.com> <20160205041346.GS19242@mournblade.imrryr.org> <01PWBEB7DVJY00008P@mauve.mrochek.com> <CAMm+LwiUL8qH4LPqjvFrkxKv2b=ovZff1oB0GCXsKSN_3Hs-Mw@mail.gmail.com> <01PWBHG6VXRM00008P@mauve.mrochek.com>
Date: Fri, 05 Feb 2016 12:04:33 -0500
X-Google-Sender-Auth: uWvhWGUwUj-tNWwInUYNpG7808E
Message-ID: <CAMm+LwifkDWoqnHOTn61s75CbdthN2e=Z_OqQvTn3Rtc6Tho+w@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: IETF mail server and SSLv3
From: Phillip Hallam-Baker <phill@hallambaker.com>
To: Ned Freed <ned.freed@mrochek.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/5FOAJcXzoK7WGDEv1_wBz2ArZ0k>
Cc: ned+ietf@mauve.mrochek.com, IETF Discussion Mailing List <ietf@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 05 Feb 2016 17:04:37 -0000

On Fri, Feb 5, 2016 at 11:13 AM, Ned Freed <ned.freed@mrochek.com> wrote:
>> Rather than discussing this on the IETF list, wouldn't it be rather
>> more productive for the discussants to get together and thrash out a
>> draft on how to use STARTTTLS in SMTP?
>
>> RFC3207 was published in 2002. 14 years and several revisions to TLS
>> later, it is probably time for a RFC3207-bis.
>
> Since the issue at hand is the ramifications of a policy change for
> IETF lists, the answer is no, it wouldn't.
>
> It's unfortunate that such a policy choice requires a deep understanding
> of how existing email software implements STARTTLS, but that's the situation
> we're in.


The point of eating the dogfood is process improvement. Not to get
used to the taste. And the point is lost if we then create our own
special dogfood.

Capturing the process and the special sauce is what I am after.

As far as policy goes, the admin of an IETF service should be
permitted to change the config any time they like provided that they
are compliant with an IETF spec.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email