IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Uta] Port 465

Chris Newman <chris.newman@oracle.com> Tue, 11 March 2014 02:55 UTC

Return-Path: <chris.newman@oracle.com>
X-Original-To: uta@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: uta@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 14BE11A06F0 for <uta@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 10 Mar 2014 19:55:38 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.205
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.205 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DATE_IN_PAST_06_12=1.543, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.547, 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 0rWyH1kcxYAF for <uta@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 10 Mar 2014 19:55:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from userp1040.oracle.com (userp1040.oracle.com [156.151.31.81]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D5D111A03AC for <uta@ietf.org>; Mon, 10 Mar 2014 19:55:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ucsinet22.oracle.com (ucsinet22.oracle.com [156.151.31.94]) by userp1040.oracle.com (Sentrion-MTA-4.3.2/Sentrion-MTA-4.3.2) with ESMTP id s2B2tRbp017110 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Tue, 11 Mar 2014 02:55:28 GMT
Received: from gotmail.us.oracle.com (gotmail.us.oracle.com [10.133.152.174]) by ucsinet22.oracle.com (8.14.5+Sun/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s2B2tO5S000165; Tue, 11 Mar 2014 02:55:24 GMT
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
Content-disposition: inline
Content-type: text/plain; CHARSET="US-ASCII"; format="flowed"
Received: from [10.159.234.198] (dhcp-whq-twvpn-3-vpnpool-10-159-234-198.vpn.oracle.com [10.159.234.198]) by gotmail.us.oracle.com (Oracle Communications Messaging Server 7.0.5.31.0 64bit (built Jan 22 2014)) with ESMTPA id <0N290013L44AKC00@gotmail.us.oracle.com>; Mon, 10 Mar 2014 19:55:23 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2014 19:25:42 +0000
From: Chris Newman <chris.newman@oracle.com>
To: Kurt Andersen <kboth@drkurt.com>, Keith Moore <moore@network-heretics.com>
Message-id: <C0B6FF2D2068878A29D97588@96B2F16665FF96BAE59E9B90>
In-reply-to: <CABuGu1q3KVKz5rQ3Z-sFruSpY=zH0ZAZHO3Akk3Ctf7hqi2cLQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <2A0EFB9C05D0164E98F19BB0AF3708C711FB9AAD89@USMBX1.msg.corp.akamai.com> <8691BA706C9BAB52D64A8444@96B2F16665FF96BAE59E9B90> <00cd01cf3b05$4e5fa500$eb1eef00$@huitema.net> <531D60FC.2090604@cisco.com> <020f01cf3c74$41845c20$c48d1460$@huitema.net> <531DDA88.9030003@cisco.com> <531DE992.6070109@network-heretics.com> <CABuGu1q3KVKz5rQ3Z-sFruSpY=zH0ZAZHO3Akk3Ctf7hqi2cLQ@mail.gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Mac OS X)
X-Source-IP: ucsinet22.oracle.com [156.151.31.94]
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/uta/dC-oqF5Z1kTeKoaHuHSEckvxxI4
Cc: uta@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Uta] Port 465
X-BeenThere: uta@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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, 11 Mar 2014 02:55:38 -0000

--On March 10, 2014 16:04:30 -0700 Kurt Andersen <kboth@drkurt.com> wrote:
>> So we really need to use a different port for SMTPS.
>
> I'd be interested to know how 465 was "taken away" from smtps without
> sufficient notice to the community.

You are incorrect about that "sufficient notice" assumption.

See appendix C:
 http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-hoffman-smtp-ssl-08

I believe I suggested the idea of deprecating "smtps" so blame me if you 
want to blame someone. I don't recall who wrote the fateful text. The 
document passed through IETF consensus and there was a two year period 
before the problem was created, assuming that was the final text IANA 
implemented. There was a solid IETF consensus at the time in favor of 
STARTTLS, and we failed at the time to realize that while "smtps" is a 
design error, "submissions" is perfectly reasonable. Unfortunately many 
implementers shipped software that used the "smtps" port as "submissions".

		- Chris

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email