IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

"John R Levine" <johnl@taugh.com> Sun, 15 December 2019 23:32 UTC

Return-Path: <johnl@taugh.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 1747012004F for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 15 Dec 2019 15:32:33 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1536-bit key) header.d=iecc.com header.b=UbZrri7p; dkim=pass (1536-bit key) header.d=taugh.com header.b=uZAY+nhA
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 A1mP2cKg9R6a for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 15 Dec 2019 15:32:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: from gal.iecc.com (gal.iecc.com [IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126:0:43:6f73:7461]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6149512000F for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sun, 15 Dec 2019 15:32:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: (qmail 34670 invoked from network); 15 Dec 2019 23:32:30 -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=876c.5df6c28e.k1912; i=johnl-iecc.com@submit.iecc.com; bh=UxWoKFOWVW2lU0rGLrCwYJosGAWfAltM46uNpKLzmBM=; b=UbZrri7pUzvP7dRSugR0yZCN/uWlZ0fsLDsQBUW8UPoK3ysQ4GsKL10PPG9BZ/KinLjbFycoyLBNSycEc2tBy61qzf6YnAZ46/tsXdLSP0PpvlZVMAxQayFLR7sOt0Rg1ZO+rqAErz/hKG4tFIBg6hzYwZyikseUl7RlJEPPQs2nFh9voKkya3bNfRi7a0h9ZPbjGjzZjJo0YvzbHOrioXJy4mqtwUye4axvGdQ42gPUUB21Gd6zACPAQDUs/6eH
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=876c.5df6c28e.k1912; olt=johnl-iecc.com@submit.iecc.com; bh=UxWoKFOWVW2lU0rGLrCwYJosGAWfAltM46uNpKLzmBM=; b=uZAY+nhA7EcLyg1+9Zz1Jv4k4DQ8mnsWYg41a7A33L+Ol65VpNNvWZJOykDHs2wr8a+5Ma2CTCF4+opTQvQcGmP3b4Qjpy9p1UfRTOH3E18F9euhFglhv+23BeMfdm7n9Y6TgCkjdSPrvRPlwplr0JPFXfBiHfU5hNBiMWVZY3LatilAc1AdOOPl3tGW0FUJ6rn7FmPczAA2Am8YTeY3RgoXmsmLn421OGGWFLvIwFmNUdTU2H6JITA+D08aNvoF
Received: from localhost ([IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126::78:696d:6170]) by imap.iecc.com ([IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126::78:696d:6170]) with ESMTPSA (TLS1.3 ECDHE-RSA AES-256-GCM AEAD, johnl@iecc.com) via TCP6; 15 Dec 2019 23:32:29 -0000
Date: Sun, 15 Dec 2019 18:32:29 -0500
Message-ID: <alpine.OSX.2.21.99999.374.1912151831300.63353@ary.qy>
From: John R Levine <johnl@taugh.com>
To: Valdis Klētnieks <valdis.kletnieks@vt.edu>
Cc: IETF general list <ietf@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: IETF Policy on dogfood consumption or avoidance - SMTP version
In-Reply-To: <754203.1576450681@turing-police>
References: <20191215222928.9DE5A1164C5A@ary.qy> <754203.1576450681@turing-police>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.21.99999 (OSX 374 2019-10-27)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"; format="flowed"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/VFfZ3ewVJzUTfSxw2V_8Eurtr84>
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: Sun, 15 Dec 2019 23:32:33 -0000

> RCPT TO:<ietf-bounces@ietf.org>
> 550 5.7.1 <[A.B.C.D]>: Helo command rejected: RFC2821 violation
>
> Personally,  my opinion is that if there's indication that a lot of spam or
> other malicious mail is arriving from "address literal EHLO" sources, it's
> appropriate to respond with a "550 5.7.1 Rejected due to policy reasons",

I agree we should fix the message.  It has been a very long time since I 
saw any legit mail from a host that identified itself with an IP other 
than someone trying to make a point that I don't understand.

R's,
John

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email