his thread, just to collect some feedback.
On Mon, Jan 14, 2019 at 8:45 PM Doug Royer wrote:
> 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 t
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
end out the positive vibe that IETF still cares about email security.
What the world thinks? -
https://gist.github.com/mistergiri/138fc46ae401b7492662a32409edb07f
What do you all think? -
https://medium.com/@dombox/smtp-over-tls-on-port-26-efc67e8a99ce
--
Best Regards,
Viruthagiri Thirumavalavan
Dombox, Inc.
port 25.
Yes, This suggestion came up on our discussions.
On Sat, Jan 12, 2019 at 7:11 AM William Herrin wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 11, 2019 at 4:22 PM Viruthagiri Thirumavalavan
> wrote:
> > What IETF Mailing list thinks? - "Implicit TLS doesn't offer any
> additional sec
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
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) ST
t 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
> &
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
TS to their
millions of customers.
Please correct me if I'm wrong with those statements
On Sat, Jan 12, 2019 at 10:36 AM wrote:
> 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
&
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
fix stands for, would come to know
downgrade attacks if the STARTTLS command not found in EHLO response.
If I force the server to accept only TLS, then that's not backward
compatible.
Thanks
On Sat, Jan 12, 2019 at 9:24 PM Seth Mattinen wrote:
> On 1/11/19 9:38 AM, Viruthagiri Thirumavalavan wro
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
>
> 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
Jason, Your comment is one of the best I have seen in this thread.
Thanks for the input and being neutral.
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 s
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
you
all think my work is bad.
But if you all think, my work has some novelty and this man made the wrong
choice, be sure to tell that too.
On Sun, Jan 13, 2019 at 4:51 AM Viruthagiri Thirumavalavan
wrote:
> I don't know why you are all try to defend a man who try to silence my
> work.
>
gt; 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, Viruthagiri Th
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, "Viru
>
> 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
bout networking or mail anymore. Please end the conversation here.
>
> -Ross
>
> On Sat, Jan 12, 2019 at 6:26 PM Viruthagiri Thirumavalavan <
> g...@dombox.org> wrote:
>
>> I don't know why you are all try to defend a man who try to silence my
>> work.
>>
>
ong wrote:
>
>
> 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 SM
> response for the generated hostnames.
My solution is vulnerable to MiTM without DNSSEC. I guess I should update
my proposal saying DNSSEC mandatory. But if you believe the prefix solution
itself flawed, the what's the point.
Thanks for the input. Those are all very helpful comments.
O
Hello Everyone,
My name is Viruthagiri Thirumavalavan. I'm the guy who proposed SMTP over
TLS on Port 26
<https://web.archive.org/web/20190218001439/https://lists.gt.net/nanog/users/202185>
last
month. I'm also the guy who attacked (???) John Levine.
Today I have something to show you.
Just gone through all your replies.
Literally everyone attacking me here. Could you tell me why? Because I have
been rude to John Levine, right? So you all think you have the right to
give me "mob justice". But as an innocent man I have to suffer all John
Levine attacks because he is a most
until the part where it says "Hot Gates Strategy", then it's really hard to
connect the dots.
Thanks
On Mon, Feb 18, 2019 at 2:21 PM James Bensley wrote:
>
>
> On 18 February 2019 06:58:21 GMT, Viruthagiri Thirumavalavan <
> g...@dombox.org> wrote:
> >Just go
@Everyone
I'm not gonna justify my behaviour. Yes my post was rude. I made a mistake.
I was way over in my head. When I typed the original message I was obsessed
with the man John Levine. He was responsible for the attacks on me in 4
mailing lists. DMARC, DKIM, IETF and this one (the old thread).
27 matches
Mail list logo
