IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [taugh.com-standards] Re: Gen-ART and OPS-Dir review of draft-ietf-appsawg-nullmx-06

"John R Levine" <johnl@taugh.com> Tue, 02 September 2014 18:31 UTC

Return-Path: <johnl@taugh.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 DF30F1A066F for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 2 Sep 2014 11:31:00 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.137
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.137 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, HOST_MISMATCH_NET=0.311, 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 SMhfsQ-5sI0X for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 2 Sep 2014 11:31:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from miucha.iecc.com (abusenet-1-pt.tunnel.tserv4.nyc4.ipv6.he.net [IPv6:2001:470:1f06:1126::2]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B0FAB1A063E for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 2 Sep 2014 11:30:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 96992 invoked from network); 2 Sep 2014 18:30:58 -0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=iecc.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:content-type:user-agent; s=17adf.54060ce2.k1409; bh=TVO73eZRUUWaYs5KM2BR1Oz7uNEfFscCcPdKQlC3K4o=; b=GMPzTxmClZgTs1DZubsH7bw7qDyMKkyNFoKrdv2vtcE5f1ODRdlXL0LqDXbnx7tVLZ072xMmKDYOtXfD1rFs6nH+VVh5U2j/6ZBxppXvM+j41MYIdf1ud4BH31zj+1c9bLmDW7HvEp8NvaCvNaL7TL0VN5iexdRoVyHW4S/P3IAhj77t8YTxY8xapdesRtr3u8+ksjFEJfEQmTgXjv+9/P2yrAzxcErermPl+w7KdxV7SBRlVtR2mMX3/AcX/uur
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=taugh.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:content-type:user-agent; s=17adf.54060ce2.k1409; bh=TVO73eZRUUWaYs5KM2BR1Oz7uNEfFscCcPdKQlC3K4o=; b=SM+MHOELLoR32udBmwgj1e9kHYaMraxcJfoRLEdrEXt1AHD5NFADAFbTqjeEuKYj0aPYcn8DkYM6LOSIspb9Ind52KTGcljeQvIO8Q4LlpONISyS5toIBnlbvC3PbII1NCbycA9zkaQf4chVBbdpcKutQTks47PCjLrLZEiCCCAzv57i80aFY9ee3clZiKzyINfUpTA69+kj+kSWT60GX5/VIbVhdqz+PxB3zR9v9NjBpCK84nRzwPLH5YWOXFLi
Received: from localhost ([IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126::78:696d:6170]) by imap.iecc.com ([IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126::78:696d:6170]) with ESMTPS (TLS1.0/X.509/SHA1) via TCP6; 02 Sep 2014 18:30:58 -0000
Date: Tue, 02 Sep 2014 14:30:57 -0400
Message-ID: <alpine.BSF.2.11.1409021427000.24698@joyce.lan>
From: John R Levine <johnl@taugh.com>
To: Viktor Dukhovni <ietf-dane@dukhovni.org>
Subject: Re: [taugh.com-standards] Re: Gen-ART and OPS-Dir review of draft-ietf-appsawg-nullmx-06
In-Reply-To: <20140902181145.GJ14392@mournblade.imrryr.org>
References: <8D3D17ACE214DC429325B2B98F3AE712077860DD21@MX15A.corp.emc.com> <20140803231730.GO15044@mournblade.imrryr.org> <20140902181145.GJ14392@mournblade.imrryr.org>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.11 (BSF 23 2013-08-11)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset="US-ASCII"; format="flowed"
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/RFWpmXJm5vPkymZv73UW96dWZp8
Cc: IETF general 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: <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: Tue, 02 Sep 2014 18:31:01 -0000

> Sadly, though it is very late in the process, I failed to notice
> this originally, and must belatedly report a significant issue
> noted by Wietse Venema.  The response code for rejecting a recipient
> with a nullmx domain and a sender with a nullmx domain are reversed
> in the draft.
>
> Since 521 like 221 and 421 leads to connection drop after the reply,

Only when it's the SMTP greeting.  In this case it's not.  That suggests 
that JCK's suggestion to have a new RFC to replace 1846 is a good one, 
since it could mention this other fairly obvious use case.

> it is only appropriate when the entire envelope will be rejected.
> Thus 521 goes with rejection of a nullmx sender domain and 550
> with a particular nullmx recipient.

No, 550 to reject the MAIL FROM is correct.  See RFC 5321, sec 3.3.  It's 
a policy rejection.

Regards,
John Levine, johnl@taugh.com, Taughannock Networks, Trumansburg NY
Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email