IETF Logo Mail Archive

[Ssh] Re: WG Review: Secure Shell Maintenance (sshm)

"D. J. Bernstein" <djb@cr.yp.to> Sat, 07 September 2024 05:33 UTC

Return-Path: <djb-dsn2-1406711340.7506@cr.yp.to>
X-Original-To: ssh@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ssh@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9DBC7C14F605 for <ssh@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 6 Sep 2024 22:33:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.207
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.207 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, PP_MIME_FAKE_ASCII_TEXT=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id CDTPn8QmpF_Q for <ssh@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 6 Sep 2024 22:33:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from salsa.cs.uic.edu (salsa.cs.uic.edu [131.193.32.108]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 250A3C14F5F2 for <ssh@ietf.org>; Fri, 6 Sep 2024 22:33:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 1656 invoked by uid 1010); 7 Sep 2024 05:33:22 -0000
Received: from unknown (unknown) by unknown with QMTP; 7 Sep 2024 05:33:22 -0000
Received: (qmail 216376 invoked by uid 1000); 7 Sep 2024 05:32:47 -0000
Date: Sat, 07 Sep 2024 05:32:47 -0000
Message-ID: <20240907053247.216374.qmail@cr.yp.to>
Mail-Followup-To: ssh@ietf.org, iesg@ietf.org
From: "D. J. Bernstein" <djb@cr.yp.to>
To: iesg@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <2D88ED20-0F61-4EFD-AE36-AF93E2D00729@juniper.net>
Message-ID-Hash: AU5TIWKMBE4KVI7CJMC2C3IBK256TPLL
X-Message-ID-Hash: AU5TIWKMBE4KVI7CJMC2C3IBK256TPLL
X-MailFrom: djb-dsn2-1406711340.7506@cr.yp.to
X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; emergency; loop; banned-address; member-moderation; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header
CC: ssh@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.9rc4
Precedence: list
Subject: [Ssh] Re: WG Review: Secure Shell Maintenance (sshm)
List-Id: "The SSH mail list will allow discussions on improving aspects of the Secure Shell (SSH) protocol." <ssh.ietf.org>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ssh/lp1m5CqrRmaNfah2cAhbmXdnB5I>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ssh>
List-Help: <mailto:ssh-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Owner: <mailto:ssh-owner@ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:ssh@ietf.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:ssh-join@ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ssh-leave@ietf.org>

John Scudder writes:
> Without commenting on its substance, I wanted to inform you that your
> "complaint to IESG dated 17 Aug 2024 03:34:56 +0200” wasn’t received.

Here's the mail log showing receipt 9D632C180B47 issued by the IETF mail
server:

   2024-08-17 01:35:11.790286500 starting delivery 1499390: msg 3106204 to remote iesg@ietf.org
   2024-08-17 01:35:12.827278500 delivery 1499390: success: 50.223.129.194_accepted_message./Remote_host_said:_250_2.0.0_Ok:_queued_as_9D632C180B47/

The reader is then forced to wonder what excuse IESG would have for
throwing away email sent to IESG's announced contact address.

The default excuse is some anti-spam mechanism. But, hmmm, surely the
IETF mail server would be professional enough to send a non-delivery
notification? Sure enough, here's a log message from a moment later:

   2024-08-17 01:35:18.168651500 info msg 3105007: bytes 1991 from <iesg@ietfa.amsl.com> qp 31461 uid 1004

But wait a minute: "All notification messages about undeliverable mail
... MUST use a null return path". The IETF mail server violated this by
using a non-null return path, namely iesg@ietfa.amsl.com, for a
non-delivery notification.

My mail server then bounced this standards-violating message by the IETF
mail server, explaining why. Of course, my mail server properly sent
_this_ bounce message from a null return path:

   2024-08-17 01:35:18.168651500 info msg 3105007: bytes 1991 from <iesg@ietfa.amsl.com> qp 31461 uid 1004
   2024-08-17 01:35:18.335796500 starting delivery 1499392: msg 3105007 to ...
   2024-08-17 01:35:18.340566500 delivery 1499392: failure: This_address_is_only_for_bounce_messages./
   2024-08-17 01:35:18.511365500 bounce msg 3105007 qp 31466
   2024-08-17 01:35:18.511527500 info msg 3106203: bytes 2531 from <> qp 31466 uid 1009
   2024-08-17 01:35:18.686670500 starting delivery 1499393: msg 3106203 to remote iesg@ietfa.amsl.com
   2024-08-17 01:35:19.235578500 delivery 1499393: success: 50.223.129.194_accepted_message./Remote_host_said:_250_2.0.0_Ok:_queued_as_0CFFCC1522B9/

In a fantasy world of an IETF postmaster actually caring about mail
being delivered, this bounce message would have been seen by the
postmaster, who would then have investigated, and the underlying IETF
standards violation by the IETF mail server would have been promptly
corrected. In the real world, obviously that didn't happen.

I see no reason that I should waste further time dealing with this
incompetence. When I have a complaint that I think IESG should address,
I'll post the complaint publicly. Anyone who objects to the public
visibility of this material should feel free to email the objection to
iesg@ietfa.amsl.com.

---D. J. Bernstein

v2.46.0 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status