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

Keith Moore <moore@network-heretics.com> Mon, 16 December 2019 05:07 UTC

Return-Path: <moore@network-heretics.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 68DA11200D5 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 15 Dec 2019 21:07:22 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_NONE=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.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 ySfTiipd8wDg for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 15 Dec 2019 21:07:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: from out3-smtp.messagingengine.com (out3-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.27]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EACD2120046 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sun, 15 Dec 2019 21:07:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: from compute6.internal (compute6.nyi.internal [10.202.2.46]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9ACA521E44; Mon, 16 Dec 2019 00:07:17 -0500 (EST)
Received: from mailfrontend1 ([10.202.2.162]) by compute6.internal (MEProxy); Mon, 16 Dec 2019 00:07:17 -0500
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=content-transfer-encoding:content-type :date:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :subject:to:x-me-proxy:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender :x-sasl-enc; s=fm1; bh=xXqd/SW2Lo9ztNPXNxdEPe4Bn7rDncACk3eWkDCzd Iw=; b=vFoaeY5RwrL4yaixKO5WJXjognG/SW6vpm+EDginosOCEOjd3gsd7rzfX HLHsx+fCmwfTxLK22wiE9uWldrq+2LqmH2Iwz6WgtKCESEc+x6/5iLVV+xREv0Dn NrDMmj97ROgIRCdVUlC/p0v6o+BNFD1przev3lALrBZjUkZbsBKnRWo42b9ldiQS cHDPARbxyYzCWjZM0qzra0BVRpaxml39dSwVWycIPyuIIp5QyGMajfW3km9VX/OA PvTwhPp39Hj2wX4yO3ioR1hczErzI0UjqfIqlGb/qSurPkGFszHFKPw23KxojoV1 FSRbTBUld9+G4kpRnpH5giQyh8q3Q==
X-ME-Sender: <xms:BRH3XXhQymQ5L7rZeaPVUQrrpe-lixtPpdhld3kNJaAImoSEvPDHjA>
X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedufedrvddtgedgjeekucetufdoteggodetrfdotf fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfqfgfvpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgen uceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucenucfjughrpefuvfhfhffkffgfgggjtgfgsehtke ertddtfeejnecuhfhrohhmpefmvghithhhucfoohhorhgvuceomhhoohhrvgesnhgvthif ohhrkhdqhhgvrhgvthhitghsrdgtohhmqeenucfkphepuddtkedrvddvuddrudektddrud ehnecurfgrrhgrmhepmhgrihhlfhhrohhmpehmohhorhgvsehnvghtfihorhhkqdhhvghr vghtihgtshdrtghomhenucevlhhushhtvghrufhiiigvpedt
X-ME-Proxy: <xmx:BRH3XXNj7erAL8LqYhrr_5uXh7u0gmjbvSKu7-XZKSveF7zb2GQ8Kw> <xmx:BRH3XTPGyjG9KcWrDIHMdbdR_ZSjVOj_eaZ_O7HQN7AQ3BI1WH8hxw> <xmx:BRH3Xes5NNU7_3Eno2mgfRNKgMSuknUdTgjNUvXX_gjqnOBH9Vpkeg> <xmx:BRH3XSVFYLwk64SPkKsaxSKA6zkXl9eWkZSGfr-fjU1v_KQzcflcnA>
Received: from [192.168.1.97] (108-221-180-15.lightspeed.knvltn.sbcglobal.net [108.221.180.15]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id DAAF980059; Mon, 16 Dec 2019 00:07:16 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Re: IETF Policy on dogfood consumption or avoidance - SMTP version
To: ietf@ietf.org
References: <20191215222928.9DE5A1164C5A@ary.qy> <754203.1576450681@turing-police> <alpine.OSX.2.21.99999.374.1912151831300.63353@ary.qy> <18926580F5114CCCADABE398@PSB>
From: Keith Moore <moore@network-heretics.com>
Message-ID: <8b3fa76b-db1f-fa95-afa3-21c276c45c59@network-heretics.com>
Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2019 00:07:15 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.9.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <18926580F5114CCCADABE398@PSB>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Language: en-US
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/WCBJufMMesus2k-w92K-usKjYTo>
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 05:07:22 -0000

On 12/15/19 11:12 PM, John C Klensin wrote:

> So, again, the first question for this list is whether we are
> comfortable with servers run in the IETF's name being
> non-conforming to IETF standards.  I see objections to that on
> ethical and credibility ground, but others may disagree.

In general, not specific to SMTP: If it could be established that there 
was a substantial and legitimate operational reason to deviate from a 
standard, IMO the correct response is to file an erratum with the RFC 
Editor and correct the standard in the next revision.   We should not be 
stubborn about sticking to standards that promote bad advice.

However, I seriously doubt that there is a legitimate reason to block 
mail that is sent using HELO/EHLO with an address literal. It is not a 
reliable indicator of spam, at least not over the long term.   If there 
really are spammers sending mail that way, there is almost certain to be 
some clue in the content of the message that could be used to filter 
with similar effectiveness.

I have been of the impression for around 30 years that the HELO (later 
EHLO) argument is pretty much meaningless and really should be ignored.

Also, bogus spam filters appear to be at least as detrimental to the 
reliability of email as spam itself.    IMO, IETF should not encourage 
such practices either in its standards or its practices, as they are 
harmful to the Internet.  Heuristics will likely only work in the short 
term and shouldn't be promoted as good practice.

Keith