IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Uta] SMTP Over TLS on Port 26 - Implicit TLS Proposal

Alice Wonder <alice@domblogger.net> Tue, 08 January 2019 15:17 UTC

Return-Path: <alice@domblogger.net>
X-Original-To: uta@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: uta@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 78A50128D0C for <uta@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 8 Jan 2019 07:17:38 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=domblogger.net
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 RdROZfxvzfzH for <uta@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 8 Jan 2019 07:17:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.domblogger.net (mail.domblogger.net [IPv6:2600:3c00::f03c:91ff:fe56:d6a2]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 32663128CF2 for <uta@ietf.org>; Tue, 8 Jan 2019 07:17:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost.localdomain (c-73-15-182-232.hsd1.ca.comcast.net [73.15.182.232]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.domblogger.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 7606D11DC for <uta@ietf.org>; Tue, 8 Jan 2019 15:17:36 +0000 (UTC)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 mail.domblogger.net 7606D11DC
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=domblogger.net; s=default2019; t=1546960656; bh=/puaDNCLsZWctC4qt9Z+jp28osJNET0gWDHxIZnJUzQ=; h=Subject:To:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=gc7g37HvYBvnYr+8KV1eJUIAO5INiTWJ7n6i53WtggEwNOJf2SK/yivdGBnmRa9oE cCn2WeYzpMrdfeZ2f8e+gnzsNvVLZ4roNUTCZNP597JoSTE7/KUyzK+TLXraOYmAnC XugBxd1LXkRPwQR18wOU9KBh4O81PjD6yCTz7t394LeOPJOtGKxehJeUGJ0J7sNhXq EGcfnLrALwdlQ87tLzomYmCDocZavloFb11AiFozV0AOZ1CC8l+IvOgnztPVpU3d3e 61IIpacMP/x5nuPSz3zl9/D3w4qAk5/Z1SEJrTOSlnMjgELUnlTXnX8EmrvGIT6bdd +RLs19WnbAgsQ==
To: uta@ietf.org
References: <20190108145726.66DC0200C7073B@ary.local>
From: Alice Wonder <alice@domblogger.net>
Message-ID: <ee351eba-3855-d509-23b5-90378b2ea7e3@domblogger.net>
Date: Tue, 08 Jan 2019 07:17:34 -0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.3.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20190108145726.66DC0200C7073B@ary.local>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/uta/Q5ycz5UW6DrS0sFw9_Dt32z1wvs>
Subject: Re: [Uta] SMTP Over TLS on Port 26 - Implicit TLS Proposal
X-BeenThere: uta@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: UTA working group mailing list <uta.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/uta>, <mailto:uta-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/uta/>
List-Post: <mailto:uta@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:uta-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/uta>, <mailto:uta-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 08 Jan 2019 15:17:39 -0000

On 1/8/19 6:57 AM, John Levine wrote:
> In article <855a7d10-2af6-4f6b-148a-8c2f6d75960c@domblogger.net> you write:
>> MX servers would not be violating RFC if they rejected plain text
>> connection attempts (over 90% of which these days are spam).
> 
> 10% is a pretty fat long tail.  The people I know who run production
> mail systems are much more concerned about receiving all of the real
> mail than rejecting spam earlier.

Yes, I am NOT proposing it because I know it wouldn't fly, but it is 
what I wish for. I simply expressed it to let the person with Port 26 
suggestion know that I too wish for TLS everywhere.

I know in real world it won't happen even though I would very much like it.

What would happen, it would end up being an RFC that is ignored and thus 
serve no purpose. Maybe someday, but not now.

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