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

Glen <glen@amsl.com> Mon, 16 December 2019 17:31 UTC

Return-Path: <glen@amsl.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 A1C8612088C for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 16 Dec 2019 09:31:56 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -104.2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-104.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=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 cXxm6bAuGluE for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 16 Dec 2019 09:31:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.amsl.com (c8a.amsl.com [4.31.198.40]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9575F120885 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 16 Dec 2019 09:31:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by c8a.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BB739202146 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 16 Dec 2019 09:29:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-oi1-f175.google.com (mail-oi1-f175.google.com [209.85.167.175]) by c8a.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 9FE37202143 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 16 Dec 2019 09:29:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-oi1-f175.google.com with SMTP id k196so3959703oib.2 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 16 Dec 2019 09:31:55 -0800 (PST)
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAUrSITG9NvYRIYeWwrkqVJJSKdvZMQ5Qnu26JWXP5JShfHESWtR BI1uCfYjWJ+GVe0rADMUx9aJG5YwIZQUKTbIqW0=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqzy8RoIk79gS5SxNbwDvYfYHMQtPTajSq+8bknBBXRjppVUlIZ6eAiIaUcS+mYsKp1r31C08FM7ErdtnbBxGxM=
X-Received: by 2002:aca:d6c4:: with SMTP id n187mr100391oig.29.1576517514886; Mon, 16 Dec 2019 09:31:54 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <16306b3a-63bd-621e-636c-dd7626f74733@foobar.org> <CABL0ig4Wz-0dk7bsRpaN6pni2rHEc-jPnygwed_Hygy+CiehQA@mail.gmail.com> <20191216170459.GG11489@straasha.imrryr.org>
In-Reply-To: <20191216170459.GG11489@straasha.imrryr.org>
From: Glen <glen@amsl.com>
Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2019 09:31:43 -0800
X-Gmail-Original-Message-ID: <CABL0ig4QJ39nCCmsWZVbD5PYPB=_D_8vXqz=QRn=gchBYi4i3Q@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CABL0ig4QJ39nCCmsWZVbD5PYPB=_D_8vXqz=QRn=gchBYi4i3Q@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: IETF Policy on dogfood consumption or avoidance - SMTP version
To: ietf@ietf.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/jkT0VcYXepfBSMy2VMSvNSJLt7w>
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 17:31:57 -0000

I sense another summoning... truncating for clarity...

On Mon, Dec 16, 2019 at 9:05 AM Viktor Dukhovni <ietf-dane@dukhovni.org> wrote:
> So at least the second message should probably be different,
> if the rule is retained.

Easily able to be done.

> But this being a community of RFC subject-matter experts, the text is
> subject to further scrutiny.

+10000000000000  :-)

> The name "postconfirm" suggests a component that asks (purported)
> senders of borderline messages to confirm their existence/intent to send
> the message.  One should indeed strive to use that sparingly.

Postconfirm is a really nice tool written by the Tools Team that uses
an email challenge-response system to confirm unknown people.  It has
grown to take on a number of other functions for the IETF, including
supporting DMARC-rewriting and so forth.  It is rock solid, and a
pleasure to use.

https://ietf.org/about/groups/tools/
https://tools.ietf.org/tools/postconfirmd/

> Do you know which of the two accounts for the bulk of the rejected traffic?

A quick check this morning suggests that it is the second rule
accounting for the bulk of traffic.

> Anyway, perhaps more than you wanted to know,

I always want to know and understand more.  (Alas, there is always
more to know and understand!  :-) _

> But if you do want to explore your options further, you could ask on the postfix-users list.

I am, and always have been, grateful for the presence and support -
and knowledge! - of the community.  Very seriously!  As a vendor I
cannot be a participant, but I am always appreciative of this and the
many messages containing support and guidance I've received over the
years.

But John's original email on this thread explains that - even though I
am interested, and even though I want things to "work right" - the
decisions about what changes to make, and how to make them, do not
rest with me (as the vendor.)  I know that I*** leadership is here,
and considering everything, and I will be happy to make whatever
changes - if any - they direct me to make.

Glen