ietf-smtp
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ietf-smtp] EHLO domain validation requirement in RFC 5321

2020-09-28 05:38:37
On 9/28/20 4:38 AM, Laura Atkins wrote:

Do you think if the wording in the RFC is changed that established behavior will change? That the SMTP servers will be reconfigured to stop doing what they are doing?

I think most operators will not bother to change their existing practices if/when the RFC wording changes.   But if the RFC recommends poor practice, it will be harder to change that poor practice, because some people will say "but the RFC says...!"   So the RFC should not recommend poor practice.

If, OTOH, the RFC recommends NOT filtering based on EHLO arguments, then it will be at least a bit easier for operators to stop doing that when they start seeing that it's a bad idea.

I'm thinking long term here.   I expect 5321bis, if we do our jobs right, to be around for decades.   So its recommendations need to make sense in the long term rather than the short term.

It doesn't actually bother me that much if existing operators filter based on EHLO validation as long as they re-evaluate that policy over time.   I expect operators to be pragmatists.   But I really do expect use of NAT64 to increase, and I really think it's unhelpful to network operators if reliable email operation requires them all to maintain static IPv4 addresses and connections to the public IPv4 Internet.   It's silly for email to delay a transition away from IPv4 for this reason.

Keith


_______________________________________________
ietf-smtp mailing list
ietf-smtp(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-smtp

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>