ietf-smtp
[Top] [All Lists]

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

2020-09-28 07:53:35
On 9/28/20 8:04 AM, Laura Atkins wrote:


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.

What is your evidence that it is 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.

What is your evidence that it’s a bad idea?

I've made those arguments multiple times already.  "evidence" seems like the wrong thing to ask for because this is really a question of /design/ - what choices should be made to allow the email network to continue operating seamlessly and efficiently in the event of widespread use of NAT within the network (either to gateway between IPv4 and IPv6 or to economize use of IPv4 space)?


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.

That presumes that your recommendation makes sense and that allowing any random NATed machine to connect to the internet and send mail is a good thing. I think we have ample evidence that this is actually an abuse vector and a bad thing.

I disagree.   At one time NAT was mostly associated with consumer grade routers, therefore NATted mail was unlikely to originate from a mail service provider, and more likely to originate from a compromised PC.   But "carrier grade" or "large scale" NATs are increasingly being used within the network (rather than only at the periphery) in order to maximize use of IPv4 address space in the face of increasing address scarcity.   Various flavors of NAT have also emerged as the likely best way to exchange traffic between IPv6 and IPv4, and their use is also increasing.

What changes do you see happening that will make this currently good practice become a bad one.

The changes I see happening include the increasing scarcity of IPv4 address space and the consequent emergence of IPv6-only network providers using NAT to move packets between IPv4 and IPv6 addressing domains.  I'm also anticipating the need to eventually phase out the public IPv4 Internet altogether.

(From operators' perspective: how long does it make sense for every network to maintain its IPv4 baggage, just so that email won't be blocked?   At the very least we need input from network operators.)

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.

Can you explain this use case in more detail?

I'm not sure what I've left out.

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>