Re: IETF Policy on dogfood consumption or avoidance - SMTP version

"Andrew G. Malis" <agmalis@gmail.com> Mon, 16 December 2019 21:51 UTC

Return-Path: <agmalis@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5D086120986; Mon, 16 Dec 2019 13:51:17 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.998
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.998 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.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 FeA55WFweisR; Mon, 16 Dec 2019 13:51:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-qk1-x735.google.com (mail-qk1-x735.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::735]) (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 56FA612096A; Mon, 16 Dec 2019 13:51:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-qk1-x735.google.com with SMTP id t129so335786qke.10; Mon, 16 Dec 2019 13:51:15 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=KANCVDZEqCVUriKZzUnpbJsujCd1HQZ+6Iw12YrPZXw=; b=Gp7MIi6GQD9jbdXWRctCrZ1e24oPnWFAkwbZxx4pjM5q31SqbPHNpc6g8RTsb+PiJ4 BkUd5sH1RYJSlogE9PHIFIyTCFPT7qL4mgkGslqwpyHMgGnnP5jrJJONtn8awcOOJOVx 5u+hvRYxYziXo9Gn5jbCSn6FdUSvTH7CvsCYr85SjO8B5IQbeIvRMLFvHcFhptmahMGH eGQDyy0s3uiSgztqUXaY1b3+r1hMDwEv71ZyhWTVlZnSLuG5joOZRSJ+1NMzA/FRMhtY RGvMdBmbczqLRUsE+QlaL5vc2dfnqDEiDWlW9Yz8rAfopP16pGesII/Th+LaIdiMffuw PqvA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=KANCVDZEqCVUriKZzUnpbJsujCd1HQZ+6Iw12YrPZXw=; b=notIHmkEW1Fx/hyX6wLLHIegdr044KuNl0GRh3Ie3HxTzc1R3crTZXjFcqolgbp5sS sKqGpjEpaCUZK7HdhrX3A9tXL6WFVxsWbD+nNwZPR4UnsLROUYDJUX2VyrqaiXDT5h/O e5MW1xu2DtIvelzagfSZOUDYcxtwBitqdwYAjURDyPg9y5U7BdrGFq/E3+p57pZXiouM o+TWwCHpf6YK7okIlAhLiHngreayHF47VJARjUWbQ4njB9GhHDMkSwMPV0KNP+T5W73j gJdbcdYJd6CPiotf6jeAcm0RvkbE+znJHvEPOgM9eYopPvo1auiPKxUheBnfAWHvDQIG HqLw==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAVi7YkmPSY9X1eqY3RHcJwwjVSWA0eo1CUKq2ZPNyqyR+LlVHIG FljkYFn0HIAwP9g0Zsk+5oCukaDtbqWB0djC7ldI9eeQ6Ns=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqwQPLsi8DuM/uVICVxpMEaE4ffEKxNtT7OiuJaaXHxfEF6rO3wUhGTuXhIcXDxqZppFFPEAk3tcKRRPWM/40kI=
X-Received: by 2002:ae9:e10e:: with SMTP id g14mr1735620qkm.430.1576533074249; Mon, 16 Dec 2019 13:51:14 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <8EE11B75E1F8A7E7105A1573@PSB> <m2a77ttff6.wl-randy@psg.com> <CABL0ig4Wz-0dk7bsRpaN6pni2rHEc-jPnygwed_Hygy+CiehQA@mail.gmail.com> <16306b3a-63bd-621e-636c-dd7626f74733@foobar.org> <DBADBA1F-5F81-4D14-8AF8-5F340F017DAC@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <DBADBA1F-5F81-4D14-8AF8-5F340F017DAC@ietf.org>
From: "Andrew G. Malis" <agmalis@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2019 16:51:03 -0500
Message-ID: <CAA=duU1tuAm+W0=zftFq_-9ygB5m2zxZAJJOmuvTZQOP6jCM1Q@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: IETF Policy on dogfood consumption or avoidance - SMTP version
To: Jay Daley <jay@ietf.org>
Cc: IETF Discussion <ietf@ietf.org>, IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, Glen <glen@amsl.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000de0d140599d935f6"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/7WehIV4JBUHyioCjyYbbE9qTMRE>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Mon, 16 Dec 2019 21:51:20 -0000

Jay,

One comment - RFC 2821 has been obsoleted by RFC 5321, so on the first
pattern, replace 2821 with 5321.

Thanks,
Andy


On Mon, Dec 16, 2019 at 4:47 PM Jay Daley <jay@ietf.org> wrote:

> Hi
>
> While there is not unanimous consensus, I think the mood is clearly to
> leave this as an operational decision.  In which case, taking into account
> the following recommendation ...
>
> On 17/12/2019, at 5:18 AM, Nick Hilliard <nick@foobar.org> wrote:
>
> Glen wrote on 16/12/2019 16:11:
>
> /^[0-9.]+$/             550 RFC2821 violation
> /^\[[0-9.]+\]$/         550 RFC2821 violation
> In just seconds, I can easily change the messages, or remove the
> rules, either with complete ease.
>
>
> s/RFC2821 violation/policy violation/
>
>
> … and the following technical comment …
>
> On 17/12/2019, at 6:04 AM, Viktor Dukhovni <ietf-dane@dukhovni.org> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Dec 16, 2019 at 08:11:11AM -0800, Glen wrote:
>
> There is a configuration file, with two lines in it:
>
> /^[0-9.]+$/             550 RFC2821 violation
> /^\[[0-9.]+\]$/         550 RFC2821 violation
>
>
> While the patterns look similar, the first one rejects non-compliant
> "EHLO 192.0.2.1" and similar dotted quads (or more generally some
> mixture of digits and dots), the second rejects RFC-compliant address
> literals.  So at least the second message should probably be different,
> if the rule is retained.
>
>
>
> … the following has now changed from
>
> /^[0-9.]+$/             550 RFC2821 violation
> /^\[[0-9.]+\]$/         550 RFC2821 violation
>
> to
>
> /^[0-9.]+$/             550 RFC2821 violation
> /^\[[0-9.]+\]$/         550 Policy violation
>
>
> As to the question of data, we cannot say for certain that the rejected
> messages were all spam, but we have only received one complaint in 10 years
> and so we can reasonably assume this rule has not caused problems that need
> to be addressed.
>
> Please let me know if you have any questions, comments or recommendations.
>
> kind regards
> Jay
>
> --
> Jay Daley
> IETF Executive Director
> jay@ietf.org
> +64 21 678840
>
>