IETF Logo Mail Archive

[perpass] SMTP and SRV records

Derek Fawcus <dfawcus+lists-perpass@employees.org> Tue, 24 November 2015 20:11 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 1446E1A8904 for <perpass@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 24 Nov 2015 12:11:05 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.687
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.687 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_40=-0.001, 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 mm7qiP72nSyI for <perpass@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 24 Nov 2015 12:11:03 -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 948581A8902 for <perpass@ietf.org>; Tue, 24 Nov 2015 12:11:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: from cowbell.employees.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cowbell.employees.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 10B1BD7888 for <perpass@ietf.org>; Tue, 24 Nov 2015 12:11:03 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=employees.org; h=date:from :to:subject:message-id:mime-version:content-type; s=selector1; bh=7aKDzIs+sFja+8del4YT081M0e8=; b=Qzs6o2lcMp3rSbJEkw4EvZ0JPtg5 Cz45CQc9T3r2cVgfIJGMs7MPB3jTk92IKBhHKomvw8+dwsZkB55zpjlmiG196igS PiBTs5QTWLJvVCJi/J9QdKQg8Ze253yo/DyXFwTPrLt6OHIRpnChTV2Yz7G5JuEH DaZTiN36IcdWrHo=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=employees.org; h=date:from :to:subject:message-id:mime-version:content-type; q=dns; s= selector1; b=hHiYqjUUU1Ga37xVXR3fsjQI3kszbhrsqMI6UhicBAn7fyA14mc cNg3kIUI+AUG2+7mmNTpej8ARMpQebDK1zDWmsF371/3qgAd9YEtAY6jKKSBgxPG /tA7R398Fpo2nPArmctoEDdDgOcgvpIqralY/LbW33TNqaefW5JkJ0uE=
Received: by cowbell.employees.org (Postfix, from userid 1736) id 0DCAED7885; Tue, 24 Nov 2015 12:11:03 -0800 (PST)
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2015 20:11:03 +0000
From: Derek Fawcus <dfawcus+lists-perpass@employees.org>
To: perpass <perpass@ietf.org>
Message-ID: <20151124201103.GA9353@cowbell.employees.org>
Mail-Followup-To: perpass <perpass@ietf.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30)
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/perpass/Y3vZAoDs2IVgugUkRdy-3jKQRA4>
Subject: [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: Tue, 24 Nov 2015 20:11:05 -0000

Given the current UK IPB bill,  I got pondering about SMTP again.

SMTP uses MX DNS records,  and so its always known to be on port 25,
would there be much value in moving to using SRV records,  such that
it could move off port 25,  making TPB's task a bit more difficult?

DF

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email