Your sarcasm detector might need a bit of a tweak. :)
On Fri, Jan 11, 2019 at 9:18 PM Viruthagiri Thirumavalavan
wrote:
> While we're at it, let's deprecate IPv4 now that IPv6 is fully deployed
>
>
> Come on Mr. Herrin.
>
> Blocking a port is much easier than deprecating a heavily used
On Mon, 14 Jan 2019, Viruthagiri Thirumavalavan wrote:
Because I saw support from people like Alessandro Vesely for my proposal.
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-smtp/pSb216OGLuTe31yUzAXtqD2haAo
Then it hit me. Maybe more people like him interested in SMTPS too. So I have
done
For the record, I dropped both proposals. I'm working on my personal
projects now. Let's not annoy others by discussing about this anymore.
I wanted to bring Implicit TLS to SMTP. So I had a good intention when I
opened this thread. But things went little crazy due to my another thread.
Many of
Because I saw support from people like Alessandro Vesely for my proposal.
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-smtp/pSb216OGLuTe31yUzAXtqD2haAo
Then it hit me. Maybe more people like him interested in SMTPS too. So I
have done some research and posted this comment.
On Sun, 13 Jan 2019 at 21:19, Viruthagiri Thirumavalavan
wrote:
> Let me copy paste some part I posted in ietf-smtp forum.
>
Please, stop.
-n
On 1/11/19 10:38 AM, Viruthagiri Thirumavalavan wrote:
Hello NANOG, Belated new year wishes.
I would like to gather some feedback from you all.
I'm trying to propose two things to the Internet Standard and it's
related to SMTP.
Your post to this list was (according to the headers):
11
>
> If you are using DNS Records to prevent downgrades anyways, then there
> should be no need nor valid justification for using an extra port number;
> the
> client SMTP sender can be required to inspect the DNS Record and find in
> the record a signal that TLS is mandatory, and the smtp client
On Fri, Jan 11, 2019 at 6:23 PM Viruthagiri Thirumavalavan
wrote:
> I'm trying to propose two things to the Internet Standard and it's related to
> SMTP.
> (1) STARTTLS downgrade protection in a dead simple way
> (2) SMTPS (Implicit TLS) on a new port (26). This is totally optional.
A new
Hello Owen,
Thanks for the input.
This thread is not about my SMTPS proposal anymore. I'm already convinced
that's not gonna work since I couldn't find any strong advantages over
Opportunistic TLS.
But I'm still open for suggestions for my "starttls-" prefix proposal. It's
just trying to
> On Jan 11, 2019, at 09:38 , Viruthagiri Thirumavalavan
> wrote:
>
> Hello NANOG, Belated new year wishes.
>
> I would like to gather some feedback from you all.
>
> I'm trying to propose two things to the Internet Standard and it's related to
> SMTP.
>
> (1) STARTTLS downgrade
No problem. We all come across this here and there. We all fail 100 times or
more but perception will always be key in how we obtain a final objective that
benefits everyone.
Thomas Edison failed thousands of times but of all those times his success only
came from the knowledge of those so
Jason, Your comment is one of the best I have seen in this thread.
Thanks for the input and being neutral.
Honestly, you feel very highly of your work in which any of us do in this field
but John has a very good point and constructive criticism shroud not be the
down fall of anyone. Read it 100 times without taking any thought of your own
work and try to see the whole picture.
Not agreeing with
>
> You'd probably do the world a favor if you spent that month instead
> finding mail
> software that does quoting and attribution correctly. You've made several
> posts
> that quoted me, and then quoted others in such a way that it looked like I
> said it.
Oh, I'm sorry about that. I'll pay
On Sun, 13 Jan 2019 04:57:26 +0530, Viruthagiri Thirumavalavan said:
> Guys, I can't able to disclose my work at this point. But I'm happy to
> publish my work again next month. In the meantime, I have no issues if you
> all think my work is bad.
You'd probably do the world a favor if you spent
Ok guys, let's stop the discussion on this thread.
On Sun, Jan 13, 2019 at 5:00 AM Ross Tajvar wrote:
> Viruthagiri,
>
> You are being too defensive. You've made this discussion about whether or
> not someone is attacking you, rather than the merit of your idea. It is not
> about networking or
On Sun, 13 Jan 2019 04:51:40 +0530, Viruthagiri Thirumavalavan said:
> I don't know why you are all try to defend a man who try to silence my work.
Rest assured that if he was actually trying to silence your work you wouldn't
have been able to post your message to NANOG.
Viruthagiri,
You are being too defensive. You've made this discussion about whether or
not someone is attacking you, rather than the merit of your idea. It is not
about networking or mail anymore. Please end the conversation here.
-Ross
On Sat, Jan 12, 2019 at 6:26 PM Viruthagiri Thirumavalavan
Yes please, Thanks Mr. Cummings
On Sun, Jan 13, 2019 at 4:56 AM Cummings, Chris wrote:
> Can we please have a mod step in and shut this thread down? Any
> conversation of value is long gone.
>
> /Chris
>
>
>
> On Sat, Jan 12, 2019 at 5:25 PM -0600, "Viruthagiri Thirumavalavan" <
>
>
> By the way, since that you've left no traces of whatever piece of work
> you've posted to that list. The website is empty, slides are removed
> from Speakerdeck, etc.
> In theory, I can easily recall a few cases in my life when going
> through just 50 words was quite enough for a judgment.
Can we please have a mod step in and shut this thread down? Any conversation of
value is long gone.
/Chris
On Sat, Jan 12, 2019 at 5:25 PM -0600, "Viruthagiri Thirumavalavan"
mailto:g...@dombox.org>> wrote:
I don't know why you are all try to defend a man who try to silence my work.
Are
I don't know why you are all try to defend a man who try to silence my work.
Are you saying this thread is necessary?
On Sun, Jan 13, 2019 at 4:46 AM Töma Gavrichenkov wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 13, 2019 at 12:51 AM Viruthagiri Thirumavalavan
> wrote:
> > 5 months back I posted my spam research on
From: NANOG on behalf of Töma Gavrichenkov
Sent: Sunday, January 13, 2019 4:48 AM
To: Viruthagiri Thirumavalavan
Cc: John Levine; nanog list
Subject: Re: yet another round of SMTP Over TLS on Port 26 - Implicit TLS
Proposal [Feedback Request]
On Sun, Jan 13, 2019
On Sun, Jan 13, 2019 at 12:51 AM Viruthagiri Thirumavalavan
wrote:
> 5 months back I posted my spam research on DMARC list.
> You have gone through only 50 words and judged my work.
> The whole thread gone haywire because of you. I was
> humiliated there and left.
By the way, since that you've
>
> Go and check how many of these match. Then ask yourself why you might
> be getting a poor reception on lists composed of people who do this stuff
> for a living.
Hello Mr. Kletnieks,
I have no problem when people criticising my work. I even dropped the idea
of port 26 because people like
On Sat, 12 Jan 2019 17:37:02 -0500, Eric Tykwinski said:
> even headers. My guess though is that if this gains traction, there will be a
> corresponding law like CALEA for LEO to intercept.
Hopefully *this* time we'll do it in such a way that LEO use will remain
higher than bad-guys use. I'm
In my opinion, the problem isn’t that great. As others have stated, you can
locally enforce only STARTTLS on the receive connector or send connector
locally to ensure that only encrypted transmission occurs. If the MTA doesn’t
send/accept STARTTLS send an error message. That the host name is
I'm not sure why are being angry here.
For the record, this conversation isn't about TLS on port 26. It's about
STARTTLS downgrade protection on port 25.
On Sun, Jan 13, 2019 at 3:33 AM Brian Kantor wrote:
> From this point forward, all mail containing the phrase "TLS on
> port 26" in the
>From this point forward, all mail containing the phrase "TLS on
port 26" in the Subject line will be shunted into my junk mail box,
unread, because I do not wish to see any more correspondence on
this matter.
'procmail' is my friend.
- Brian
On Sun, Jan 13, 2019 at 03:20:26AM +0530,
Hello Mr. Levine,
5 months back I posted my spam research on DMARC list. You have gone
through only 50 words and judged my work. The whole thread gone haywire
because of you. I was humiliated there and left.
Last week I posted in IETF list. To be very honest, I don't like you.
That's because you
In article
you write:
>What IETF Mailing list thinks? - "Implicit TLS doesn't offer any additional
>security than a downgrade protected STARTTLS. Let's not waste a port."
He's forum shopping. He's already take this to two IETF lists and
we've explained to him why it's not a good idea.
If you
What makes you think I never did any research?
https://medium.com/@Viruthagiri/smtp-ports-25-vs-587-vs-465-de1046f57636
On Sat, Jan 12, 2019 at 10:10 PM James Downs wrote:
> > On Jan 12, 2019, at 08:14, Viruthagiri Thirumavalavan
> wrote:
>
> > My solution is intended for clients. A client
> On Jan 12, 2019, at 08:14, Viruthagiri Thirumavalavan wrote:
> My solution is intended for clients. A client should decide whether to
> transmit mails in clear text or not.
You should spend some time doing research by reading RFCs, and doing a little
searching on the internet. Your
Hi Seth,
My solution is intended for clients. A client should decide whether to
transmit mails in clear text or not.
In other words, the server can accept mails in clear text. The prefix
informs the client, that the server supports TLS.
A client that knows what "starttls-" prefix stands for,
On 1/11/19 9:38 AM, Viruthagiri Thirumavalavan wrote:
Hello NANOG, Belated new year wishes.
I would like to gather some feedback from you all.
I'm trying to propose two things to the Internet Standard and it's
related to SMTP.
(1) STARTTLS downgrade protection in a dead simple way
(2)
Hi Töma,
Those are valid points.
Thanks for the input.
On Sat, Jan 12, 2019 at 4:02 PM Töma Gavrichenkov wrote:
> 12 Jan. 2019 г., 8:44 Viruthagiri Thirumavalavan :
> > Pros of introducing Implicit TLS:
> > + Falls under Best Practices
> > + Seems like it's what the world wants.
>
> None of
12 Jan. 2019 г., 8:44 Viruthagiri Thirumavalavan :
> Pros of introducing Implicit TLS:
> + Falls under Best Practices
> + Seems like it's what the world wants.
None of the above is really a technical argument within standards process.
The world wants emojis in domain names, so what?
> + Sets an
; To: Suresh Ramasubramanian
> Cc: nanog@nanog.org
> Subject: Re: SMTP Over TLS on Port 26 - Implicit TLS Proposal [Feedback
> Request]
>
> On Fri, 11 Jan 2019 at 22:00, Suresh Ramasubramanian
> wrote:
> > Most new MTA implementations over the past several years default
> To the OP - what's the point of hiding the hostname in the smtp banner?
> You already know from the dns. Concerned about the MTA version? You can
> configure postfix to claim it is exchange or avian carrier for that matter
I was concerned about the Brand name right next to the 220 hostname
On Sat, 12 Jan 2019 09:45:12 +0530, Viruthagiri Thirumavalavan said:
> But I still want the future of email to adopt Implicit TLS. So someday we
> can kill Opportunistic TLS. I already lost the case for security. So my
> smtps part of the proposal not gonna fly. I'm just here to learn whether
>
On Sat, 12 Jan 2019 09:45:12 +0530, Viruthagiri Thirumavalavan said:
> When I originally drafted the SMTPS proposal, I thought those plaint text
> part before the STARTTLS command leaks some sensitive info.
So - given that multiple people have explained to you on the ietf-smtp list
that there's
@nanog.org
Subject: Re: SMTP Over TLS on Port 26 - Implicit TLS Proposal [Feedback Request]
On Fri, 11 Jan 2019 at 22:00, Suresh Ramasubramanian
wrote:
> Most new MTA implementations over the past several years default to TLS with
> strong ciphers. So how much of a problem is low or no TLS
On Fri, 11 Jan 2019 at 22:00, Suresh Ramasubramanian
wrote:
> Most new MTA implementations over the past several years default to TLS with
> strong ciphers. So how much of a problem is low or no TLS right now?
The real problem is that opportunistic StartTLS stops being
opportunistic the minute
roblem - what is the return for all this effort?
>
> --srs
>
> --
> *From:* NANOG on behalf of
> Viruthagiri Thirumavalavan
> *Sent:* Saturday, January 12, 2019 9:21 AM
> *To:* nanog@nanog.org
> *Subject:* Re: SMTP Over TLS on Port 26 - Imp
9:21 AM
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: SMTP Over TLS on Port 26 - Implicit TLS Proposal [Feedback Request]
If you all think my prefix proposal have some merits, it still paves the way
for future smtps proposals. So I have no issues with killing smtps part of my
proposal.
As for signalling, I'm
If you all think my prefix proposal have some merits, it still paves the
way for future smtps proposals. So I have no issues with killing smtps part
of my proposal.
As for signalling, I'm not sure whether moving the signalling part to
another record type is a good idea.
Because my signalling
On 1/11/19 9:52 PM, William Herrin wrote:
Your other idea of signaling via DNS that a man in the middle is
present if the target SMTP server fails to support encryption could
have merit. I think the specific mechanism (overloading the host name)
is unwise but I'd be interested to see the concept
On Fri, Jan 11, 2019 at 6:14 PM Viruthagiri Thirumavalavan
wrote:
>> While we're at it, let's deprecate IPv4 now that IPv6 is fully deployed
>
> Come on Mr. Herrin.
Hi Viruthagiri,
If you don't want to face the hyperbole then don't stick your head in
the sand. Unless you grossly underestimate
On Fri, 11 Jan 2019 at 20:01, William Herrin wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jan 11, 2019 at 5:52 PM Viruthagiri Thirumavalavan
> wrote:
> >> In addition, it bypasses all the security folks have built around the
> >> idea of blocking port 25 traffic from sources which should not be
> >> operating as mail
: NANOG on behalf of Viruthagiri Thirumavalavan
Sent: Saturday, January 12, 2019 7:43 AM
To: Doug Royer
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: SMTP Over TLS on Port 26 - Implicit TLS Proposal [Feedback Request]
Hello Doug, it's happening in ietf-smtp. This is my first proposal. So haven't
created the I-D
>
> While we're at it, let's deprecate IPv4 now that IPv6 is fully deployed
Come on Mr. Herrin.
Blocking a port is much easier than deprecating a heavily used protocol.
Google stats show ~75% use IPv4.
On Sat, Jan 12, 2019 at 7:30 AM William Herrin wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 11, 2019 at 5:52 PM
>
> In addition, it bypasses all the security folks have built around the
> idea of blocking port 25 traffic from sources which should not be
> operating as mail servers. Let's not make the network less secure in
> the name of making it more so.
I already addressed this issue in the "security
Hello Doug, it's happening in ietf-smtp. This is my first proposal. So
haven't created the I-D yet.
I'm not sure how to create one.
That's why I published my proposal in the medium. Please see the medium
link I posted earlier.
Thanks.
On Sat, Jan 12, 2019, 6:46 AM Doug Royer On 1/11/19 10:38
On Fri, Jan 11, 2019 at 5:52 PM Viruthagiri Thirumavalavan
wrote:
>> In addition, it bypasses all the security folks have built around the
>> idea of blocking port 25 traffic from sources which should not be
>> operating as mail servers. Let's not make the network less secure in
>> the name of
On Fri, Jan 11, 2019 at 4:22 PM Viruthagiri Thirumavalavan
wrote:
> What IETF Mailing list thinks? - "Implicit TLS doesn't offer any additional
> security than a downgrade protected STARTTLS. Let's not waste a port."
In addition, it bypasses all the security folks have built around the
idea of
On 1/11/19 10:38 AM, Viruthagiri Thirumavalavan wrote:
Hello NANOG, Belated new year wishes.
I would like to gather some feedback from you all.
I'm trying to propose two things to the Internet Standard and it's
related to SMTP.
(1) STARTTLS downgrade protection in a dead simple way
(2)
Having been through this many times, I'd say that probably the best way
to advocate for something is to advocate for what the *problem* is much
more than what the *solution* is. Invariably, things are more complex
than we imagine in the solution space and the people who inhabit that
space are
Hello NANOG, Belated new year wishes.
I would like to gather some feedback from you all.
I'm trying to propose two things to the Internet Standard and it's related
to SMTP.
(1) STARTTLS downgrade protection in a dead simple way
(2) SMTPS (Implicit TLS) on a new port (26). This is totally
58 matches
Mail list logo
