IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Jay Daley <jay@ietf.org> Mon, 16 December 2019 23:02 UTC

Return-Path: <jay@ietf.org>
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 DD182120950; Mon, 16 Dec 2019 15:02:20 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001] 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 7_KTcantp1A5; Mon, 16 Dec 2019 15:02:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: from macbook-pro.localdomain (unknown [158.140.230.105]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id D3BF612093F; Mon, 16 Dec 2019 15:02:17 -0800 (PST)
From: Jay Daley <jay@ietf.org>
Message-Id: <83921C09-C757-4A56-8EC8-C674682EEB7D@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_D4C269CF-1FA5-4920-81C1-7BE1FF3DFBFC"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.0 \(3608.40.2.2.4\))
Subject: Re: IETF Policy on dogfood consumption or avoidance - SMTP version
Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2019 12:02:15 +1300
In-Reply-To: <CAA=duU1tuAm+W0=zftFq_-9ygB5m2zxZAJJOmuvTZQOP6jCM1Q@mail.gmail.com>
Cc: Glen <glen@amsl.com>, IETF Discussion <ietf@ietf.org>, IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
To: "Andrew G. Malis" <agmalis@gmail.com>
References: <8EE11B75E1F8A7E7105A1573@PSB> <m2a77ttff6.wl-randy@psg.com> <CABL0ig4Wz-0dk7bsRpaN6pni2rHEc-jPnygwed_Hygy+CiehQA@mail.gmail.com> <16306b3a-63bd-621e-636c-dd7626f74733@foobar.org> <DBADBA1F-5F81-4D14-8AF8-5F340F017DAC@ietf.org> <CAA=duU1tuAm+W0=zftFq_-9ygB5m2zxZAJJOmuvTZQOP6jCM1Q@mail.gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.40.2.2.4)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/z9HB51nJMz8rlg1IRXRnrWCxjao>
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 23:02:21 -0000

Andrew

> On 17/12/2019, at 10:51 AM, Andrew G. Malis <agmalis@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Jay,
> 
> One comment - RFC 2821 has been obsoleted by RFC 5321, so on the first pattern, replace 2821 with 5321.

Will do.  

thanks
Jay


> 
> Thanks,
> Andy
> 
> 
> On Mon, Dec 16, 2019 at 4:47 PM Jay Daley <jay@ietf.org <mailto:jay@ietf.org>> wrote:
> Hi
> 
> While there is not unanimous consensus, I think the mood is clearly to leave this as an operational decision.  In which case, taking into account the following recommendation ...
> 
>> On 17/12/2019, at 5:18 AM, Nick Hilliard <nick@foobar.org <mailto:nick@foobar.org>> wrote:
>> 
>> Glen wrote on 16/12/2019 16:11:
>>> /^[0-9.]+$/             550 RFC2821 violation
>>> /^\[[0-9.]+\]$/         550 RFC2821 violation
>>> In just seconds, I can easily change the messages, or remove the
>>> rules, either with complete ease.
>> 
>> s/RFC2821 violation/policy violation/
> 
> … and the following technical comment … 
> 
>> On 17/12/2019, at 6:04 AM, Viktor Dukhovni <ietf-dane@dukhovni.org <mailto:ietf-dane@dukhovni.org>> wrote:
>> 
>> On Mon, Dec 16, 2019 at 08:11:11AM -0800, Glen wrote:
>> 
>>> There is a configuration file, with two lines in it:
>>> 
>>> /^[0-9.]+$/             550 RFC2821 violation
>>> /^\[[0-9.]+\]$/         550 RFC2821 violation
>> 
>> While the patterns look similar, the first one rejects non-compliant
>> "EHLO 192.0.2.1" and similar dotted quads (or more generally some
>> mixture of digits and dots), the second rejects RFC-compliant address
>> literals.  So at least the second message should probably be different,
>> if the rule is retained..
> 
> 
> 
> … the following has now changed from
> 
> 	/^[0-9.]+$/             550 RFC2821 violation
> 	/^\[[0-9.]+\]$/         550 RFC2821 violation
> 
> to
> 
> 	/^[0-9.]+$/             550 RFC2821 violation
> 	/^\[[0-9.]+\]$/         550 Policy violation
> 
> 
> As to the question of data, we cannot say for certain that the rejected messages were all spam, but we have only received one complaint in 10 years and so we can reasonably assume this rule has not caused problems that need to be addressed.
> 
> Please let me know if you have any questions, comments or recommendations.
> 
> kind regards
> Jay
> 
> -- 
> Jay Daley
> IETF Executive Director
> jay@ietf.org <mailto:jay@ietf.org>
> +64 21 678840
> 

-- 
Jay Daley
IETF Executive Director
jay@ietf.org
+64 21 678840

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email