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

Viruthagiri Thirumavalavan <giri@dombox.org> Sun, 06 January 2019 05:23 UTC

Return-Path: <giri@dombox.org>
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 74E79130DE3 for <uta@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 5 Jan 2019 21:23:26 -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, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=dombox.org
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 N4q3cXo9JxBo for <uta@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 5 Jan 2019 21:23:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-yw1-xc33.google.com (mail-yw1-xc33.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::c33]) (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 7A698130DCD for <uta@ietf.org>; Sat, 5 Jan 2019 21:23:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-yw1-xc33.google.com with SMTP id t13so16024097ywe.13 for <uta@ietf.org>; Sat, 05 Jan 2019 21:23:24 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=dombox.org; s=default; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=N3usTOh6GAVZ/ofU8n88iTaXOhH/E/zbwy02GwS2ujs=; b=d30tOgxI/oygIysA/gPgdZefj4rjANwJhwfxnhEp/EXHYMDpGrwn4uBKvRIZFIUKgu nMz3lClSQIG/Ug5sB+VTnl2gp4zdSrTE/9ditgg59VT4aBqf3SkOle4I+7HstzCED4d5 C6yXIUhWNaweZ/AboCloWaYnvViecUazF9zniNNTBAUByKzMafvqSz3yl6Mm54ysaBF1 FldrpqVbXLVX2CU49O013vJ+Vmb/oTCrWKllg+qanERfSeiLNgoildHF5ikeaY/Jm5qy dfSufRBGXPEF33FZght29HPIBAC8j+dOECZE358Lxkpn2lX8mbpiIVqvDy1BCPYdBZP8 /FLQ==
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; bh=N3usTOh6GAVZ/ofU8n88iTaXOhH/E/zbwy02GwS2ujs=; b=Zn8lL1EkaAGVcCUTO+ziP4t5pV9KXMpVVSctTl7WzQZoRpY5Rvit6IePGfu4/KhhG0 +zbKGvGJHrUoU8X+4YmLXNIEODtRQ4hS+Aq0vJDdhwYxeBwRfwQl+ohZRfyRiugntVG7 EjXShRNoeQMuBKG0z38CnXr2VyIkmW7KLpDZEkOMGKh317LbpV4ukRCnXw1p70rc6uyY J8BLb3mQ+Z4Qq8aPKH1CP3F5y+IMEjBda6TVer0C74q4RravHVTpyINH+38jjCiuyLXs cC4X/1GADfV92gWKdZVarQwbwTiiF6X+Gp0EywgvA6izs1nDwANCDQsB3g63izS1eCSn OhIA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AA+aEWY/ndDk4yFC3vdNALZH0bunh/dpJlBj1Mu3vleFGRSkafCM/3t7 Knfq2dHti7GG8oxCYK2BY9S50wlLtp7w/ekdkLXSDlkSW+g=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AFSGD/XM8kB1UGmM/9UDGqTMMj9QkhNCRjKgBFHdOJCvJ0aAm/8foVl8ABByzsC1zythjNKVs7YxxKDtlcTxBw7vsJ8=
X-Received: by 2002:a81:8d14:: with SMTP id d20mr59158548ywg.150.1546752203385; Sat, 05 Jan 2019 21:23:23 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAOEezJTyEf+Sn9ZqQPue1DFUSoFO211YogJ6ufYJxswWzXk=_A@mail.gmail.com> <20190106010828.CC431200C5ED52@ary.qy> <CAOEezJShOYkmy8-E+8zG=CPXxrWNcxf8q8W8MnW-v1RT0FzEWw@mail.gmail.com> <123cecc0-aba2-9530-c0d9-b6437f295140@domblogger.net> <5169b5ea-f092-5a59-b037-b0bb45a9ff7f@spamtrap.tnetconsulting.net>
In-Reply-To: <5169b5ea-f092-5a59-b037-b0bb45a9ff7f@spamtrap.tnetconsulting.net>
From: Viruthagiri Thirumavalavan <giri@dombox.org>
Date: Sun, 06 Jan 2019 10:53:12 +0530
Message-ID: <CAOEezJQ9xv9b28=b0xvM18WD1ik+6e5hS3odw6eonEr40x0pmg@mail.gmail.com>
To: uta@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000a3b6f9057ec34f8b"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/uta/_0CMOT3xlOAepLjVWWI_IImMbCM>
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: Sun, 06 Jan 2019 05:23:27 -0000

>
> I'm going to agree with Viruthagiri on this one.  Setting up a web
> server, including TLS certificate, is more advanced than many people are
> comfortable with.  Granted, all of the requirements / steps involved are
> relatively simple in and of themselves.  There are more than a few of
> them, any one of which can be problematic for someone who is completely
> new to doing such.


Finally there is one person agree with me on something. Your response is a
sight for sore eyes mate.
Anyone else wanna join me? I don't think SMTPS will be introduced anytime
soon if you guys are silent.

Don't get me wrong. I don't want to standardise a flawed solution. That's
the last thing I want to do.  However if my solution really makes sense,
then it can make a difference to the SMTP world.

@Viktor Dukhovni

Because of your criticism, I improved my solution. Credit goes to you.  Thanks
very much for that

@John

Your new criticisms are most welcome. But I'm not sure whether your old
criticisms are valid.

IDNs use a complex encoding and there is no reason to assume the encoding
> won't occasionally include the string "26pref".


Can you provide an example where it's not the case?

Sorry, but this is a fantasy.  SMTP routing still falls back to an A
> record if there's no MX and the DNS has been around for 30 years.  And
> your assmptions about what is hard and what is easy may be correct for
> your personal situation, but they are not true in general.
> Look at it this way -- if you can set up an STS server in less than a
> decade, you're ahead of the game.


Here is the problem with that part.  A records are IE6 equivalent in the
SMTP world. These days everyone moved to the MX records. There are rare
cases where some mail servers still rely on A records.

My solution doesn't deal with A records. It's the clients decision whether
to use MX record or A record.

Let's just pretend my solution rely on A records, you are criticising my
work saying that 0.1% people not gonna upgrade to "MX Records". On the
other hand, you think 100% of the internet gonna upgrade to a completely
new system STS.

Isn't that irony?