IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

"Andrew G. Malis" <agmalis@gmail.com> Mon, 16 December 2019 17:13 UTC

Return-Path: <agmalis@gmail.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 01FBB120865; Mon, 16 Dec 2019 09:13:44 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.998
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.998 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.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 c-Mlw5u_gzM8; Mon, 16 Dec 2019 09:13:42 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-qk1-x734.google.com (mail-qk1-x734.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::734]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2716A120864; Mon, 16 Dec 2019 09:13:42 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-qk1-x734.google.com with SMTP id 21so3089059qky.4; Mon, 16 Dec 2019 09:13:42 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=DwmFz3q7X2IZrIQ+gyTSIJ9mDyibdAWUXzMKYbDS7Do=; b=hmk8wuwaYSazN+rcZSuAYLaECgpqxnUGkm3NTXAOLGOHGvG8WEi23xF+3PKy+1nkpU yK+TmlDZAYvJgXxAMvxhJjFgDYcOdtBMIPRh7aROxH1pv/sd0NFgPhcjhZbcVAEiS5Tr jqzpkSQuDQAdFW5RwW5W+oJUPVnqzRqIZI3jdMABAu0nANa9/XprtXvJLqenXvA/ySkn FD4aljhHIXpCH3W8YfBoryTUM+pD9/ETGbc66i/eu76niEFUxhxBMDA1UvbPeLdlqMg+ M9UrZmQ2NEM4OufmwoGjl910ihwFGuuhLtSOhxtBqNhCw1QJlZ+gnaM7ndPG4TN5R6pE Genw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=DwmFz3q7X2IZrIQ+gyTSIJ9mDyibdAWUXzMKYbDS7Do=; b=a2iBj8UQAqUmEU5/BGzIRyHcb/ZY6jb5mMDaIc/4H8l2N8BQVrP566ZOvMb+09qUXE E0IFJ/MwM6Rv2M0hiWwOKZmAy5nn0FJTeQPtHtgf08t3BsqMvHowxwvT8ZB0z/Ytf+i+ 9q+B9ngG/fu4b6HQvAEU+2la0vby/3AZUmg5t91tvkTGGQMKdZFy/Fkhru6vGkZPESIK A4Ut/iJ0pAObSivQQYpLPfZu5gAIVDtgwmkI3RgsYAFW7LR21+oVTYUwc+ynHgkc/nnN wvKzNSaMiWwIIH94BhOaCZdDazSaihqh0RGExxHhg53jYd8UK9pRRirxJjCQYcdHiXNV q18Q==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAVZhGnJuwRxVgMmZvECVVS0eyj5VZxivDHRtKbJjEx27a3YEuMR EvxmqblfpRNigt1Aoukz/N+MqNHykDRnQNHbKirmikZoalY=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqxkMcgAaVNOpRiyS8wLTR9hGXbPWfhNWfJCrbFrj4gcHKeN8Sk/2vRbz7HSmrBAu3L7HfkHi/JGnUFogBtvVQE=
X-Received: by 2002:a37:a4cf:: with SMTP id n198mr246860qke.483.1576516420978; Mon, 16 Dec 2019 09:13:40 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <8EE11B75E1F8A7E7105A1573@PSB> <m2a77ttff6.wl-randy@psg.com> <CABL0ig4Wz-0dk7bsRpaN6pni2rHEc-jPnygwed_Hygy+CiehQA@mail.gmail.com> <16306b3a-63bd-621e-636c-dd7626f74733@foobar.org> <CAMm+Lwiq=2j1Wpp8-eLX7zMUv=GK3a5wYh4SAmTOb=c4FWQmjg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAMm+Lwiq=2j1Wpp8-eLX7zMUv=GK3a5wYh4SAmTOb=c4FWQmjg@mail.gmail.com>
From: "Andrew G. Malis" <agmalis@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2019 12:13:30 -0500
Message-ID: <CAA=duU30q3wP30JLywZsBHQVYxAK1T7R37_8tyO-XGA-mRrb8g@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: IETF Policy on dogfood consumption or avoidance - SMTP version
To: Phillip Hallam-Baker <phill@hallambaker.com>
Cc: Nick Hilliard <nick@foobar.org>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, IETF Discussion Mailing List <ietf@ietf.org>, Glen <glen@amsl.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000414d120599d555ab"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/zEm7yDbLkeg41fT0NaZQVQHldfg>
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 17:13:44 -0000

Back in his original email on the topic, John quoted RFC 5321. However,
5321 also says, in section 7.9, that "... an SMTP server may refuse to
accept mail for any operational or technical reason that makes sense to the
site providing the server.", and then "When mail is rejected for these or
other policy reasons, a 550 code SHOULD be used in response to EHLO (or
HELO), MAIL, or RCPT as appropriate."

So I'm also +1 on keeping the policy intact for the reasons cited by Glen,
and updating the 550 message sent by Postfix. This is conformant to the RFC.

Cheers,
Andy


On Mon, Dec 16, 2019 at 11:32 AM Phillip Hallam-Baker <phill@hallambaker.com>
wrote:

> On Mon, Dec 16, 2019 at 11:18 AM Nick Hilliard <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/
>>
>> + let's move on.
>>
>
> +1
>
> Try as we may, a 40 year old protocol that was designed before we had any
> of the technology required to mitigate abuse is not going to meet every
> modern need.
>
> What concerns me is not that the old protocols are failing but that the
> new protocols that are being deployed are closed. Sure, the Signal spec is
> open. But it is a closed system. You cannot connect to the Signal world
> from the outside.
>
> Millions of people are using non-SMTP and non-XMPP messaging systems every
> day. Perhaps deployment isn't quite as impossible as some people imagine.
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email