On Fri, Aug 12, 2016 at 5:24 PM, Viktor Dukhovni <[email protected]>
wrote:

> Delivery disruption that's due to stale policy is IMHO far less
> likely to be the cause of problems, and so doing synchronous HTTPS
> refresh and retry is I think too much complexity and latency for
> too little gain.  I'd like to see that part of the suggested state
> machine go away.
>

I don't think this is incompatible with what you say. Refreshing doesn't
have to be synchronous from the sending MTA's perspective; it just has to
happen before the message is perm-failed. Your suggested implementation
seems to be:

1. Temp fail the message.
2. Check for policy refreshes on every delivery.

That has the same properties as the "synchronous" implementation. So I
think we can change the language here, but I do think it's important that
perm failures are not generated from stale policies.

That said, if we check the DNS record on every send, stale policies run
very little chance of being the cause of failures since recipients are
unlikely to break their cached policies within the difference between
time-of-policy-check and time-of-delivery-attempt, so this may be
superfluous if we explicitly require a check of the TXT record before
delivery (which we don't right now).

So in short, I think we can either (or both) a) *require* a check of the
TXT record before send (totally reasonable) or b) require at least one
check before a perm fail.


>
> Incidentally, issue "72" on Github completely misses the boat on
> extending the state machine to describe the behaviour for multiple
> *receiving* MX hosts.  There's some needless discussion of cache
> coherence (state sharing) among multiple sending hosts, but no
> discussion of how the sender state machine interacts with multiple
> remote MX hosts.
>

Yes, I think that's a separate discussion. I think one of the points in
https://github.com/mrisher/smtp-sts/issues/85, but I haven't looked in
detail yet.
_______________________________________________
Uta mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/uta

Reply via email to