Re: [apps-discuss] Last Call: <draft-ietf-appsawg-nullmx-05.txt> (A NULL MX Resource Record for Domains that Accept No Mail) to Proposed Standard
Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com> Thu, 17 July 2014 22:28 UTC
Return-Path: <nico@cryptonector.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 0CC381A02F7; Thu, 17 Jul 2014 15:28:02 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.666
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.666 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001] 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 tsgANQ4LfJ5x; Thu, 17 Jul 2014 15:28:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from homiemail-a85.g.dreamhost.com (sub4.mail.dreamhost.com [69.163.253.135]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0A7521A00AF; Thu, 17 Jul 2014 15:28:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from homiemail-a85.g.dreamhost.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by homiemail-a85.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C45E9BBA063; Thu, 17 Jul 2014 15:28:00 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=cryptonector.com; h=date :from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-type:in-reply-to; s=cryptonector.com; bh=1uc6ulu22Awmy/ U0aSalIIKVTuk=; b=lJz7hfp/76C2XsfY7KK4yOzIiKdjaFCsOtXGpefJ8jrhGe bPvgC7sGyPAnp2Kie/HqPfvicpMtVYn1Yuqz7MfaC86K3AA8J8I43s/i0yMCJR6S ZUlvNCr6i6o31Xguqot+pfEuFcNRjLkLaGucqO+2zgWey+fvocM/TkL2nKXEQ=
Received: from localhost (108-207-244-174.lightspeed.austtx.sbcglobal.net [108.207.244.174]) (Authenticated sender: nico@cryptonector.com) by homiemail-a85.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 5229CBBA05F; Thu, 17 Jul 2014 15:28:00 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2014 17:27:59 -0500
From: Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com>
To: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] Last Call: <draft-ietf-appsawg-nullmx-05.txt> (A NULL MX Resource Record for Domains that Accept No Mail) to Proposed Standard
Message-ID: <20140717222758.GA9356@localhost>
References: <20140703190347.24899.45193.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <7140A115A74391DED82A2028@JcK-HP8200.jck.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <7140A115A74391DED82A2028@JcK-HP8200.jck.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/97mDBrTDuNV21TnJ3DguOKasBPI
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Fri, 18 Jul 2014 08:01:41 -0700
Cc: dnsop@ietf.org, ietf@ietf.org, apps-discuss@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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Thu, 17 Jul 2014 22:28:02 -0000
On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 01:39:53PM -0400, John C Klensin wrote: > > - 'A NULL MX Resource Record for Domains that Accept No Mail' > > <draft-ietf-appsawg-nullmx-05.txt> as Proposed Standard When I first saw this and your reply I thought "what the heck is he talking about, it's so obviously a good idea". Then I read sections 4.3 and 5. Now I join the objection chorus. > Hi. For a number of reasons, many of which have been identified > by others, I find this draft and the actions it recommends > distasteful. I see it as another step, albeit a small one, in > the direction of prioritizing the prevention of unwanted > messages or connections over successful delivery of legitimate > messages. I continue to believe that prioritization is > undesirable, at least without fundamentally converting the email > infrastructure to an "acknowledge on delivery because there is > no expectation of successful deliveries" one rather than the > current protocols, which focus on notifications for > non-delivery. [...] I think what you're objecting to is the section 4.3 and related text that conflates "does not accept e-mail" with "does not send e-mail". If so I agree. The two assertions *must* be separable! And preferably the two assertions should be separate both, in terms of mechanism and specification. Assuming this conflation were fixed or the "does not send e-mail" text removed, nothing in the remainder of the draft prevents notifications for non-deliveries. Indeed, the "does not accept e-mail" assertion [greatly] optimizes the case where the target domain does not accept incoming e-mail -- a very desirable feature, and one worth standardizing without any relation to "does not send e-mail" assertions. I especially reject the first sentence of the third paragraph of section 4.3: regardless of the truth of that statement, it is insufficient to draw the inference "does not accept e-mail implies does not send e-mail". > The last sentence of the second paragraph of Section 5 > ("Security Considerations") of the spec says: > > "The normal way to send mail for which a sender wants no > responses remains unchanged, by using an empty > RFC5321.MailFrom address." > > First, two issues of terminology: +1, but I think this should all be fixed by removing section 4.3 and any remnant of the conflation of "does not accept" with "does not send" e-mail. That is my preferred resolution. I strongly recommend splitting this into two I-Ds, or at the very least section 4.3 and related text into a top-level section. The "does not send e-mail" assertion *must not* be the same as the "does not accept e-mail". Nico --
- Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-appsawg-nullmx-05.txt>… John C Klensin
- Re: [DNSOP] Last Call: <draft-ietf-appsawg-nullmx… Dave Crocker
- Re: [apps-discuss] Last Call: <draft-ietf-appsawg… Murray S. Kucherawy
- Re: [apps-discuss] Last Call: <draft-ietf-appsawg… John C Klensin
- Re: [DNSOP] Last Call: <draft-ietf-appsawg-nullmx… Mark Andrews
- Re: [DNSOP] Last Call: <draft-ietf-appsawg-nullmx… Sandy Wills
- Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-appsawg-nullmx-05.txt>… Viktor Dukhovni
- Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-appsawg-nullmx-05.txt>… Dave Crocker
- Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-appsawg-nullmx-05.txt>… John C Klensin
- Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-appsawg-nullmx-05.txt>… Dave Crocker
- Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-appsawg-nullmx-05.txt>… Mark Andrews
- Re: [DNSOP] Last Call: <draft-ietf-appsawg-nullmx… Murray S. Kucherawy
- Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-appsawg-nullmx-05.txt>… John Levine
- Re: [apps-discuss] Last Call: <draft-ietf-appsawg… Tony Finch
- Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-appsawg-nullmx-05.txt>… Ted Lemon
- Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-appsawg-nullmx-05.txt>… John C Klensin
- Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-appsawg-nullmx-05.txt>… Dave Crocker
- Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-appsawg-nullmx-05.txt>… Tony Finch
- Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-appsawg-nullmx-05.txt>… Ted Lemon
- Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-appsawg-nullmx-05.txt>… John Levine
- Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-appsawg-nullmx-05.txt>… Dave Crocker
- Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-appsawg-nullmx-05.txt>… Ted Lemon
- Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-appsawg-nullmx-05.txt>… Ted Lemon
- Re: [apps-discuss] Last Call: <draft-ietf-appsawg… Nico Williams
- Re: [apps-discuss] Last Call: <draft-ietf-appsawg… Nico Williams
- Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-appsawg-nullmx-05.txt>… Dave Crocker
- Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-appsawg-nullmx-05.txt>… Ted Lemon
- Re: [apps-discuss] Last Call: <draft-ietf-appsawg… ned+ietf
- Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-appsawg-nullmx-05.txt>… Hector Santos
- Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-appsawg-nullmx-05.txt>… Hector Santos
- summary for Last Call: <draft-ietf-appsawg-nullmx… John Levine
- Re: summary for Last Call: <draft-ietf-appsawg-nu… ned+ietf
- Re: summary for Last Call: <draft-ietf-appsawg-nu… John R Levine
- Re: summary for Last Call: <draft-ietf-appsawg-nu… Dave Cridland
- Re: summary for Last Call: <draft-ietf-appsawg-nu… Tony Finch
- Re: summary for Last Call: <draft-ietf-appsawg-nu… John R Levine
- Re: summary for Last Call: <draft-ietf-appsawg-nu… ned+ietf
- Re: summary for Last Call: <draft-ietf-appsawg-nu… Tony Finch
- Re: summary for Last Call: <draft-ietf-appsawg-nu… ned+ietf
- Re: summary for Last Call: <draft-ietf-appsawg-nu… Tony Finch
- Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-appsawg-nullmx-05.txt>… Mark Andrews
- Re: summary for Last Call: <draft-ietf-appsawg-nu… ned+ietf
- Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-appsawg-nullmx-05.txt>… Viktor Dukhovni
- Re: summary for Last Call: <draft-ietf-appsawg-nu… Viktor Dukhovni
- Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-appsawg-nullmx-05.txt>… Viktor Dukhovni
- Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-appsawg-nullmx-05.txt>… S Moonesamy
- Re: summary for Last Call: <draft-ietf-appsawg-nu… Tony Finch
- Re: [apps-discuss] Last Call: <draft-ietf-appsawg… Douglas Otis
- Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-appsawg-nullmx-05.txt>… Viktor Dukhovni
- Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-appsawg-nullmx-05.txt>… Dave Crocker
- Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-appsawg-nullmx-05.txt>… John R Levine
- Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-appsawg-nullmx-05.txt>… Scott Kitterman
- Re: summary for Last Call: <draft-ietf-appsawg-nu… ned+ietf
- Re: [apps-discuss] Last Call: <draft-ietf-appsawg… John C Klensin
- Re: [apps-discuss] Last Call: <draft-ietf-appsawg… Nico Williams
- Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-appsawg-nullmx-05.txt>… Ted Lemon
- Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-appsawg-nullmx-05.txt>… Douglas Otis
- Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-appsawg-nullmx-05.txt>… Viktor Dukhovni
- Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-appsawg-nullmx-05.txt>… John Levine
- Last Call conduct redux (Was: Last Call: <draft-i… Pete Resnick