Re: IETF mail server and SSLv3

John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com> Thu, 04 February 2016 22:31 UTC

Return-Path: <john-ietf@jck.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 EB7471B31AB for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 4 Feb 2016 14:31:22 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.358
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.358 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DATE_IN_PAST_06_12=1.543, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-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 wZ6YzufGdd7l for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 4 Feb 2016 14:31:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: from bsa2.jck.com (bsa2.jck.com [70.88.254.51]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CD9EF1B31AA for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 4 Feb 2016 14:31:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost ([::1]) by bsa2.jck.com with esmtp (Exim 4.82 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <john-ietf@jck.com>) id 1aRSQq-000E75-II for ietf@ietf.org; Thu, 04 Feb 2016 17:31:20 -0500
Date: Thu, 04 Feb 2016 11:22:57 -0500
From: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>
To: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: IETF mail server and SSLv3
Message-ID: <C9624BB55C713BCF83E4A552@7AD4D3FB4841A5E367CCF211>
In-Reply-To: <20160204024001.GM19242@mournblade.imrryr.org>
References: <F38A9FEF-7DBB-4F40-860E-6CB425E5EEE3@ietf.org> <sjmvb66r1st.fsf@securerf.ihtfp.org> <20160204024001.GM19242@mournblade.imrryr.org>
X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Win32)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: ::1
X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: john-ietf@jck.com
X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on bsa2.jck.com); SAEximRunCond expanded to false
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/TWYtb8lQ35AUZZC0d28SaMnklMw>
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: Thu, 04 Feb 2016 22:31:23 -0000


--On Thursday, 04 February, 2016 02:40 +0000 Viktor Dukhovni
<ietf-dane@dukhovni.org> wrote:

>...
> I am quite comfortable at this time with a requirement of
> better than SSLv3 for SMTP on the public Internet.

Unless there is a fallback to clear text, I am not.  If we were
to succeed in creating a situation in which the only email that
could be sent or received on the public Internet was encrypted
in transit (and, by the way, encrypted or otherwise very well
protected and secured on relays and in mail stores), I think it
is only a matter of time before some government resorts to the
time-honored approach of making the use of crypto illegal and
specifying harsh punishments for its use.   

The effect of such a decision would be to cause whole countries
to vanish from the connected email network environment.    I
think that would be undesirable in general and inappropriate for
IETF materials and discussions.   For that and other reasons, I
think there is a balance to be struck between being open and
transparent and trying to insist on high levels of privacy for
things that are really need very little privacy protection (or
that are fully public in other ways, e.g., by appearing in
generally-accessible archives).  YMMD.

     john