IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [perpass] SMTP and SRV records

Derek Fawcus <dfawcus+lists-perpass@employees.org> Wed, 25 November 2015 07:11 UTC

Return-Path: <dfawcus@employees.org>
X-Original-To: perpass@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: perpass@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 879F41B2ADE for <perpass@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 24 Nov 2015 23:11:38 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.586
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.586 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.585, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
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 YJ1LgJCw9rUP for <perpass@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 24 Nov 2015 23:11:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: from cowbell.employees.org (cowbell.employees.org [65.50.211.142]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DA9E71B2AE0 for <perpass@ietf.org>; Tue, 24 Nov 2015 23:11:28 -0800 (PST)
Received: from cowbell.employees.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cowbell.employees.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 69E24D7886 for <perpass@ietf.org>; Tue, 24 Nov 2015 23:11:28 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=employees.org; h=date:from :to:subject:message-id:references:mime-version:content-type :in-reply-to; s=selector1; bh=x+y/YxmJdI7XD4u0vNJY1abNaUc=; b=FM Nh6qwO+lUY5iu5tqpmDm4M/Q7Gn9K7zex8EfTyiGTAcySFLQzpavnnekqUdlEHnl NLhRglKLUS82kLGfO+vAQGqf9pLUN1ltk2E1hgHxYMVflZAINOHxHgHyMdAzS7nI rBkkMS9sUsSrNu5mSVl0s4a+LseNHegIYUn0lZGmo=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=employees.org; h=date:from :to:subject:message-id:references:mime-version:content-type :in-reply-to; q=dns; s=selector1; b=BhUsfspTgocvMM34ZkLKJR6oicEn zdmPtqMp6bWQEUehnBZzakq6tSpiKrm9vdzKx/ZiTmiah0nxXWSUtSLbv200sD0y L/RQQTDLHoovpr1Yb4+oQCBq4oCukCh2zbUz3Z1QfwOui/P/iJNSITRDN4QFfGI8 Luv2DjpLItOqWFk=
Received: by cowbell.employees.org (Postfix, from userid 1736) id 5B285D7885; Tue, 24 Nov 2015 23:11:28 -0800 (PST)
Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2015 07:11:28 +0000
From: Derek Fawcus <dfawcus+lists-perpass@employees.org>
To: perpass <perpass@ietf.org>
Message-ID: <20151125071128.GA99066@cowbell.employees.org>
Mail-Followup-To: perpass <perpass@ietf.org>
References: <20151124201103.GA9353@cowbell.employees.org> <5654D5AF.50700@cisco.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <5654D5AF.50700@cisco.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30)
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/perpass/OG4iqeWuGV9Cz-jTF4VzcjU8aUo>
Subject: Re: [perpass] SMTP and SRV records
X-BeenThere: perpass@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: "The perpass list is for IETF discussion of pervasive monitoring. " <perpass.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/perpass>, <mailto:perpass-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/perpass/>
List-Post: <mailto:perpass@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:perpass-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/perpass>, <mailto:perpass-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2015 07:11:38 -0000

On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 10:25:03PM +0100, Eliot Lear wrote:
> Hi Derek,
> 
> What benefit would this add to the average user?

1. the snoopers have to potentially listen to all ports
2. it makes traffic analysis (for SMTP) more awkward to implement
3. doesn't require use of a certificate / encryption.

So assume that tcpinc (or SMTP+TLS) gets wide deployment,
that still leaves 1 & 2 above.

Maybe at the moment most users take advantage of an ISP's smart
host,  and so there would seem to be little benefit wrt 2 above.

However one of the impacts of the IPB looks to be encouraging
more people to run their own SMTP server,  or at least one with
a restricted set of users,  when point 2 becomes more significant.

DF

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email