RE: Last Call: draft-klensin-rfc2821bis
"Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <pbaker@verisign.com> Thu, 27 March 2008 15:53 UTC
Return-Path: <ietf-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: ietfarch-ietf-archive@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-ietf-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4371C3A6FD8; Thu, 27 Mar 2008 08:53:48 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -99.704
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-99.704 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.664, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_ORG=0.611, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=1.396, RDNS_NONE=0.1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id R5BANCgP1yP0; Thu, 27 Mar 2008 08:53:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0B28428C3B7; Thu, 27 Mar 2008 08:53:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-Original-To: ietf@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 32E503A6862 for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 27 Mar 2008 08:53:40 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id aFhkmIdH02sH for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 27 Mar 2008 08:53:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from robin.verisign.com (robin.verisign.com [65.205.251.75]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A15BB3A6D97 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 27 Mar 2008 08:53:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mou1wnexcn01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com (mailer1.verisign.com [65.205.251.34]) by robin.verisign.com (8.12.11/8.13.4) with ESMTP id m2RFpGC9002248 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 27 Mar 2008 08:51:16 -0700
Received: from MOU1WNEXMB09.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com ([10.25.15.197]) by mou1wnexcn01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Thu, 27 Mar 2008 08:51:15 -0700
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: RE: Last Call: draft-klensin-rfc2821bis
Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2008 08:51:15 -0700
Message-ID: <2788466ED3E31C418E9ACC5C316615572FF891@mou1wnexmb09.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: Last Call: draft-klensin-rfc2821bis
Thread-Index: AciPcnC0JtbiJbxvQq+JHKQLtDiudAAAU5XwAASTMgIAAtax4AAj8Kt+
References: <20080326150139.86203.qmail@simone.iecc.com> <47EA8CD8.3010500@network-heretics.com><alpine.BSF.1.00.0803261436260.36932@simone.iecc.com> <11a101c88f75$96b63bd0$c422b370$@net> <2788466ED3E31C418E9ACC5C316615572FF88C@mou1wnexmb09.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <11fe01c88f95$09381ab0$1ba85010$@net>
From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <pbaker@verisign.com>
To: alh-ietf@tndh.net, ietf@ietf.org
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 27 Mar 2008 15:51:15.0286 (UTC) FILETIME=[6382BF60:01C89022]
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
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>
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============0101220878=="
Sender: ietf-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ietf-bounces@ietf.org
You are completely incorrect in describing MX records as no more than an optimization. The MX record defines the mail SERVICE. An A or AAAA record defines a HOST. Nor am I rewriting history here, the early RFCs that describe the emergence of the mail service and the DNS make it very clear that the operational needs of email were not fully understood at the start of the process. That is why it was called research. The MX record was very clearly introduced in recognition of the fact that deployment of the DNS made possible better options than had been possible with the hosts file. And begging the question is a logical fallacy in which the conclusion is assumed in the premise, petition principii. ________________________________ From: Tony Hain [mailto:alh-ietf@tndh.net] Sent: Wed 26/03/2008 6:59 PM To: Hallam-Baker, Phillip; ietf@ietf.org Subject: RE: Last Call: draft-klensin-rfc2821bis Your arguments make no sense. Any service that has an MX creates absolutely no cost, and the fallback to AAAA only makes one last attempt to deliver the mail before giving up. Trying to force the recipient MTA to publish an MX to avoid delivery failure on the sending MTA is useless, and in no way belongs in a standard document. MX records are an operational optimization, nothing more. The function of mail delivery is between IPv4/IPv6 endpoints, and how those endpoints find each other is orthogonal to the actual service of mail delivery. Having the document state a prioritization between 2 of the possible methods is pushing the edge already, but worth allowing because there should be consistent interpretation between domains that don't have a prior agreement. You should also stop trying to rewrite history by claiming that something was 'not understood at the time'. While you may wish things were more tightly enforced, pragmatics will always win out, which also means that no matter what the IETF says people will do whatever it takes to deliver the mail. If you don't want mail delivered to any machine except those with an MX, then don't listen on the port for all the others. This actually begs the question, how would publication or not of an MX have any impact on a spam-bot network? It is not like the service provider mail servers are trying to look up bot members to send spam to. If the service provider mail servers are doing MX lookups as some sort of verification step, it is trivial for a spammer to create a bunch of MX records to bypass that lame effort. Tony From: ietf-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Hallam-Baker, Phillip Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2008 2:26 PM To: alh-ietf@tndh.net; ietf@ietf.org Subject: RE: Last Call: draft-klensin-rfc2821bis I don't undestand the reasoning here. My understanding is that we implicitly deprecated receivers relying on fallback to A in 2821. Section 5 makes it clear that you look for MX first and that MX takes priority. It is thus not compliant to look at AAAA records today and I see no reason to change this in the future. Instead any 2821Bis should do the job of a bis and deprecate reliance on A fallback, but not support for it. suggesting that people write a BCP to deprecate a protocol feature instead of a bis seems backwards to me. Mail is a service lookup, not a host name lookup. Support for use of fallback to IPv4 host name lookup is a historical accident due to the fact that the distinction was not understood at the time. We do not require IPv6 host name fallback, IPv6 host name fallback has a significant cost that will have immediate impact on every mail service lookup that is compliant. IPv6 should use the service resolution lookup. We should prohibit fallback to AAAA outright and deprecate configurations that rely on A. ________________________________________ From: ietf-bounces@ietf.org on behalf of Tony Hain Sent: Wed 26/03/2008 3:14 PM To: ietf@ietf.org Subject: RE: Last Call: draft-klensin-rfc2821bis John Levine wrote: > >> Not to be cynical or anything, but regardless of what we decree, I > >> think it's vanishingly unlikely that many systems on the public > >> Internet* will accept mail from a domain with only an AAAA record. > > > I think it's vanishing unlikely that email will be useful at all, if > spam > > filter writers keep trashing mail based on such dubious criteria. > > Not to reignite the usual spam argument, but it is (unfortunately in > this > case) not 1988 or even 1998 any more. When upwards of 90% of all mail > is > spam, keeping mail usable is at least as dependent on limiting the spam > that shows up in people's mailboxes as delivering the trickle of good > mail. > > Real life spam filters use metrics and tune to the actual behavior of > mailers. If most of the mail that comes from domains with AAAA and no > MX > is spam, they'll tune for that, and it won't be a mistake. For the > forseeable future, most such mail will be from zombies, and it'll all > be > spam. This document is not the place to fight spam. If you want a BCP to deprecate the fall-back, then write one. Until all the implementations remove fall-back to A, the correct behavior is to also fall-back to AAAA. People (particularly the apps dev & support communities) are having a hard enough time getting their heads around even thinking about IPv6 that making your proposed procedural change is insane. Whatever reasons people have for not implementing MX will not change just because they are deploying IPv6. The current text is just fine the way it is. Tony _______________________________________________ IETF mailing list IETF@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________ IETF mailing list IETF@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
- RE: Last Call: draft-klensin-rfc2821bis (Simple M… Hollenbeck, Scott
- Re: Last Call: draft-klensin-rfc2821bis (Simple M… Frank Ellermann
- Re: Last Call: draft-klensin-rfc2821bis (Simple M… Frank Ellermann
- Re: Last Call: draft-klensin-rfc2821bis (Simple M… Frank Ellermann
- Re: Last Call: draft-klensin-rfc2821bis (Simple M… Pete Resnick
- Re: Last Call: draft-klensin-rfc2821bis (Simple M… Ned Freed
- Re: Last Call: draft-klensin-rfc2821bis (Simple M… Frank Ellermann
- Re: Last Call: draft-klensin-rfc2821bis (Simple M… Dave Crocker
- Re: Last Call: draft-klensin-rfc2821bis (Simple M… Frank Ellermann
- Re: Last Call: draft-klensin-rfc2821bis (Simple M… John C Klensin
- Re: Last Call: draft-klensin-rfc2821bis (Simple M… Ned Freed
- Lists and aliases (Re: Last Call: draft-klensin-r… Harald Tveit Alvestrand
- Re: Last Call: draft-klensin-rfc2821bis (Simple M… Pete Resnick
- Re: Lists and aliases (Re: Last Call: draft-klens… Ned Freed
- Re: Lists and aliases (Re: Last Call: draft-klens… Tony Finch
- Re: Lists and aliases (Re: Last Call: draft-klens… Ned Freed
- Last Call: draft-klensin-rfc2821bis (Simple Mail … Frank Ellermann
- Re: Last Call: draft-klensin-rfc2821bis (Simple M… Ned Freed
- Re: Last Call: draft-klensin-rfc2821bis (Simple M… John C Klensin
- Re: Last Call: draft-klensin-rfc2821bis (Simple M… Frank Ellermann
- Re: Last Call: draft-klensin-rfc2821bis (Simple M… Ned Freed
- Re: Last Call: draft-klensin-rfc2821bis (Simple M… Pekka Savola
- Re: Last Call: draft-klensin-rfc2821bis Frank Ellermann
- Re: Last Call: draft-klensin-rfc2821bis Douglas Otis
- Re: Last Call: draft-klensin-rfc2821bis John C Klensin
- Re: Last Call: draft-klensin-rfc2821bis Mark Andrews
- Re: Last Call: draft-klensin-rfc2821bis John C Klensin
- Re: Last Call: draft-klensin-rfc2821bis Douglas Otis
- Re: Last Call: draft-klensin-rfc2821bis John C Klensin
- Re: Last Call: draft-klensin-rfc2821bis John Leslie
- Re: Last Call: draft-klensin-rfc2821bis Ned Freed
- Re: Last Call: draft-klensin-rfc2821bis Frank Ellermann
- Re: Last Call: draft-klensin-rfc2821bis Douglas Otis
- Re: Last Call: draft-klensin-rfc2821bis Ned Freed
- Re: Last Call: draft-klensin-rfc2821bis Keith Moore
- Re: Last Call: draft-klensin-rfc2821bis Frank Ellermann
- Re: Last Call: draft-klensin-rfc2821bis Bill Manning
- Re: Last Call: draft-klensin-rfc2821bis Frank Ellermann
- Re: Last Call: draft-klensin-rfc2821bis Mark Andrews
- Re: Last Call: draft-klensin-rfc2821bis Bill Manning
- Re: Last Call: draft-klensin-rfc2821bis Bill Manning
- Re: Last Call: draft-klensin-rfc2821bis Ned Freed
- Re: Last Call: draft-klensin-rfc2821bis Ned Freed
- Re: Last Call: draft-klensin-rfc2821bis Willie Gillespie
- Re: Last Call: draft-klensin-rfc2821bis Mark Andrews
- Re: Last Call: draft-klensin-rfc2821bis Keith Moore
- Re: Last Call: draft-klensin-rfc2821bis John C Klensin
- Re: Last Call: draft-klensin-rfc2821bis Keith Moore
- Re: Last Call: draft-klensin-rfc2821bis Ned Freed
- Re: Last Call: draft-klensin-rfc2821bis Ned Freed
- Re: Last Call: draft-klensin-rfc2821bis Ned Freed
- Re: Last Call: draft-klensin-rfc2821bis Keith Moore
- Re: Last Call: draft-klensin-rfc2821bis Markku Savela
- Re: Last Call: draft-klensin-rfc2821bis Ned Freed
- RE: Last Call: draft-klensin-rfc2821bis Hallam-Baker, Phillip
- Re: Last Call: draft-klensin-rfc2821bis Keith Moore
- Re: Last Call: draft-klensin-rfc2821bis SM
- Re: Last Call: draft-klensin-rfc2821bis Bill Manning
- Re: Last Call: draft-klensin-rfc2821bis Keith Moore
- Re: Last Call: draft-klensin-rfc2821bis Mark Andrews
- Re: Last Call: draft-klensin-rfc2821bis SM
- Re: Last Call: draft-klensin-rfc2821bis John C Klensin
- Re: Last Call: draft-klensin-rfc2821bis SM
- Re: Last Call: draft-klensin-rfc2821bis Pekka Savola
- Re: Last Call: draft-klensin-rfc2821bis Mark Andrews
- Re: Last Call: draft-klensin-rfc2821bis Frank Ellermann
- Re: Last Call: draft-klensin-rfc2821bis Keith Moore
- Re: Last Call: draft-klensin-rfc2821bis Bill Manning
- Implicit MX and A RRs (was: Re: Last Call: draft-… John C Klensin
- Re: Last Call: draft-klensin-rfc2821bis Frank Ellermann
- Re: Last Call: draft-klensin-rfc2821bis Mark Andrews
- Re: Last Call: draft-klensin-rfc2821bis Frank Ellermann
- Re: Implicit MX and A RRs Tony Hansen
- Re: Last Call: draft-klensin-rfc2821bis John Levine
- Re: Last Call: draft-klensin-rfc2821bis Frank Ellermann
- Re: Last Call: draft-klensin-rfc2821bis John C Klensin
- Re: Last Call: draft-klensin-rfc2821bis Tony Finch
- Re: Last Call: draft-klensin-rfc2821bis Keith Moore
- Re: Last Call: draft-klensin-rfc2821bis Keith Moore
- Re: Last Call: draft-klensin-rfc2821bis John Levine
- Re: Last Call: draft-klensin-rfc2821bis Eliot Lear
- RE: Last Call: draft-klensin-rfc2821bis Tony Hain
- Re: Last Call: draft-klensin-rfc2821bis Keith Moore
- Re: Last Call: draft-klensin-rfc2821bis Keith Moore
- Re: Last Call: draft-klensin-rfc2821bis Dave Crocker
- Re: Last Call: draft-klensin-rfc2821bis Keith Moore
- Re: Last Call: draft-klensin-rfc2821bis Keith Moore
- RE: Last Call: draft-klensin-rfc2821bis Hallam-Baker, Phillip
- Re: Last Call: draft-klensin-rfc2821bis Willie Gillespie
- IPv6 incentive? RE: Last Call: draft-klensin-rfc2… Hallam-Baker, Phillip
- Re: Last Call: draft-klensin-rfc2821bis Frank Ellermann
- Re: Last Call: draft-klensin-rfc2821bis Jim Fenton
- Re: Last Call: draft-klensin-rfc2821bis David Conrad
- RE: Last Call: draft-klensin-rfc2821bis Tony Hain
- Re: Last Call: draft-klensin-rfc2821bis Dave Crocker
- Re: Last Call: draft-klensin-rfc2821bis Frank Ellermann
- Re: Last Call: draft-klensin-rfc2821bis Keith Moore
- RE: Last Call: draft-klensin-rfc2821bis Hallam-Baker, Phillip
- RE: Last Call: draft-klensin-rfc2821bis Tony Hain
- RE: Last Call: draft-klensin-rfc2821bis John C Klensin
- Re: Implicit MX and A RRs John C Klensin
- Re: Implicit MX and A RRs Matti Aarnio
- RE: Last Call: draft-klensin-rfc2821bis John C Klensin
- Re: Last Call: draft-klensin-rfc2821bis Mark Andrews
- Re: Implicit MX and A RRs Tony Finch
- Re: Last Call: draft-klensin-rfc2821bis Ned Freed
- Re: Last Call: draft-klensin-rfc2821bis Mark Andrews
- Re: Last Call: draft-klensin-rfc2821bis Joe Abley
- Re: Last Call: draft-klensin-rfc2821bis Mark Andrews
- Re: Last Call: draft-klensin-rfc2821bis John C Klensin
- Re: Last Call: draft-klensin-rfc2821bis Keith Moore
- Re: Last Call: draft-klensin-rfc2821bis David Morris
- Re: Last Call: draft-klensin-rfc2821bis Keith Moore
- Re: Implicit MX and A RRs Keith Moore
- RE: Last Call: draft-klensin-rfc2821bis michael.dillon
- Re: Last Call: draft-klensin-rfc2821bis Douglas Otis
- Re: Last Call: draft-klensin-rfc2821bis John C Klensin
- Re: Last Call: draft-klensin-rfc2821bis Keith Moore
- Re: Last Call: draft-klensin-rfc2821bis Ned Freed
- Re: Implicit MX and A RRs Ned Freed
- Re: Last Call: draft-klensin-rfc2821bis Frank Ellermann
- Re: Last Call: draft-klensin-rfc2821bis John C Klensin
- Re: Last Call: draft-klensin-rfc2821bis Keith Moore
- Re: Last Call: draft-klensin-rfc2821bis Ned Freed
- Re: Last Call: draft-klensin-rfc2821bis Frank Ellermann
- Re: Last Call: draft-klensin-rfc2821bis Pekka Savola
- Re: Last Call: draft-klensin-rfc2821bis John C Klensin
- Re: Last Call: draft-klensin-rfc2821bis Pekka Savola
- Re: Last Call: draft-klensin-rfc2821bis Frank Ellermann
- Re: Last Call: draft-klensin-rfc2821bis Ned Freed
- Re: Last Call: draft-klensin-rfc2821bis Keith Moore
- Re: Last Call: draft-klensin-rfc2821bis Dave Crocker
- Re: Last Call: draft-klensin-rfc2821bis Keith Moore
- Re: Last Call: draft-klensin-rfc2821bis Theodore Tso
- Re: Last Call: draft-klensin-rfc2821bis Frank Ellermann
- Re: Last Call: draft-klensin-rfc2821bis Henning Schulzrinne
- Re: Last Call: draft-klensin-rfc2821bis John Levine
- Re: Last Call: draft-klensin-rfc2821bis SM
- Re: Last Call: draft-klensin-rfc2821bis Keith Moore
- Re: Last Call: draft-klensin-rfc2821bis SM
- Re: Last Call: draft-klensin-rfc2821bis John Levine
- Re: Last Call: draft-klensin-rfc2821bis Dave Crocker
- Re: Last Call: draft-klensin-rfc2821bis Henning Schulzrinne
- Re: Last Call: draft-klensin-rfc2821bis David Morris
- Re: Last Call: draft-klensin-rfc2821bis Dave Crocker
- Re: Last Call: draft-klensin-rfc2821bis Mark Andrews
- Re: Last Call: draft-klensin-rfc2821bis Keith Moore
- Re: Last Call: draft-klensin-rfc2821bis John C Klensin
- Re: Last Call: draft-klensin-rfc2821bis Keith Moore
- Re: Last Call: draft-klensin-rfc2821bis Tony Finch
- Re: Last Call: draft-klensin-rfc2821bis Henning Schulzrinne
- Re: Last Call: draft-klensin-rfc2821bis Bill Manning
- Re: Last Call: draft-klensin-rfc2821bis Dave Crocker
- Re: Last Call: draft-klensin-rfc2821bis Keith Moore
- Re: Last Call: draft-klensin-rfc2821bis: closing … Tony Hansen
- Re: Last Call: draft-klensin-rfc2821bis: closing … Dave Crocker
- Re: Last Call: draft-klensin-rfc2821bis: closing … Keith Moore
- Re: Last Call: draft-klensin-rfc2821bis: closing … Lisa Dusseault
- Re: Last Call: draft-klensin-rfc2821bis: closing … Douglas Otis
- Re: Last Call: draft-klensin-rfc2821bis: closing … Hector Santos
- Re: Last Call: draft-klensin-rfc2821bis: closing … Henning Schulzrinne
- Re: Last Call: draft-klensin-rfc2821bis: closing … Dave Crocker
- Re: Last Call: draft-klensin-rfc2821bis: closing … Paul Smith
- Re: Last Call: draft-klensin-rfc2821bis: closing … Keith Moore
- Re: Last Call: draft-klensin-rfc2821bis: closing … Tom.Petch
- Re: Last Call: draft-klensin-rfc2821bis: closing … Hector Santos
- Re: Last Call: draft-klensin-rfc2821bis: closing … Robert A. Rosenberg