From nobody Wed Jun 13 13:34:16 2018 Return-Path: X-Original-To: art@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: art@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3180F130F8E for ; Wed, 13 Jun 2018 13:34:08 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.911 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.911 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_DKIMWL_WL_MED=-0.01] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=nightwatchcybersecurity-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Vxy5D3YEVMU3 for ; Wed, 13 Jun 2018 13:34:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-pg0-x242.google.com (mail-pg0-x242.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c05::242]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 62D54131001 for ; Wed, 13 Jun 2018 13:34:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-pg0-x242.google.com with SMTP id a14-v6so1812893pgw.10 for ; Wed, 13 Jun 2018 13:34:05 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=nightwatchcybersecurity-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=FDB4ccV6cIGkHHqUfnOwplMEYvZCi45OtLI8g2nQ4Z0=; b=scTrJ0z/vHSj/u/qIXO+hMiIKzkXlVB73nSN3yosPI0jggHoUF2axKDfYy1ND9C7Wp lnFjljxZpr7Jv9iW+aw54+WJ1uUAIF17yGc6jVs3PjivRGKnqQOin9t8/iZBh+Huhkaf oyuhow3F8/mTfCb9Xydvs229BDGUwkqTY8vKUSbCww8+YolwWoGGAFmLN22cbZCecT37 Dg0R55hYthdyhj1cY586GZLyKnUBVCmRDfuWmdePltK7rgLR/iCSqSD9hJ9quBUAzZQf XAAgEUWwv1kcIuQgBgRHgVa+dRE2aXWNxVTPiEYmjEFkbfoL0kJVeEzxxzNEWX85SmuQ K9pQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to; bh=FDB4ccV6cIGkHHqUfnOwplMEYvZCi45OtLI8g2nQ4Z0=; b=EnpcgwTz9knFF8fUgZnt9T340IjJmZ4WebSNXlEGekHP/chkDpT4vyocmNvs8ss1oA YrFKDIzjgs8H+B5vloLXkv6kOflOtGF+t/+mU3yNimIdp3ICqkQTtmnK9qcvAIONN3jW jsNGKTv5yikeo1xytferwA5KsQy2pL+JezTwlBl8xb4yaJBzLMsEzDdr+fc+VZbhFeFW Hq20PHSikW2Ubffpb2jDkBd6Wf5WP62VJECD2q7tn844kam/aYYrqlv0EFCm47igmlsP 8w8bItKXH7iMOWs8E63sfGOW/L84u0xjQqm5nglKdbMXyCo2eT8QCULhiA/QzmfjZC/0 1org== X-Gm-Message-State: APt69E3a8dbmgx/fOWCOap1Iuf5zYZcKF42fyZuJcUgbuXXM/czOm0TS ADXKmDJhTAnJ2IXo2jg1v0d5WWbBM6zA1bR+5HgJR+KtIa4= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ADUXVKL3uEniX7EbV4pQ3TOntsPV3fLXsn7c8tpIGC8pbiADRmWwphP6loALZRzmOVZC7//L9StMQ31e9iZgfSR+AGU= X-Received: by 2002:a63:770f:: with SMTP id s15-v6mr5510912pgc.30.1528922044729; Wed, 13 Jun 2018 13:34:04 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 2002:a17:90a:94c3:0:0:0:0 with HTTP; Wed, 13 Jun 2018 13:33:24 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <152782037805.14857.15616903006929369460.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> References: <152782037805.14857.15616903006929369460.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> From: Yakov Shafranovich Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2018 16:33:24 -0400 Message-ID: To: art@ietf.org, ietf-smtp@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Archived-At: Subject: [art] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-shafranovich-privacy-mailbox-00.txt X-BeenThere: art@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.26 Precedence: list List-Id: Applications and Real-Time Area Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2018 20:34:09 -0000 I originally posted this to the DISPATCH list but Murray Kucherawy recommended that these two lists may be a more appropriate forum to solicit feedback. Thank you in advance. Draft: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-shafranovich-privacy-mailbox Abstract: Multiple Internet standards describe common mailbox names (mailbox @ domain) to be used by organizations for operational and business functions. This document defines a new mailbox called "privacy" that SHOULD be used for contacting domain name owners about privacy issues. From nobody Wed Jun 13 14:53:28 2018 Return-Path: X-Original-To: art@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: art@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C8B42130DE3; Wed, 13 Jun 2018 14:53:18 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.9 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id zWscy6WtExcF; Wed, 13 Jun 2018 14:53:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from bsa2.jck.com (bsa2.jck.com [70.88.254.51]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C364A1271FF; Wed, 13 Jun 2018 14:53:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [198.252.137.10] (helo=PSB) by bsa2.jck.com with esmtp (Exim 4.82 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1fTDhb-0009nd-6v; Wed, 13 Jun 2018 17:53:15 -0400 Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2018 17:53:07 -0400 From: John C Klensin To: Yakov Shafranovich cc: art@ietf.org, ietf-smtp@ietf.org Message-ID: <5A59244C179E2AA59292B66B@PSB> In-Reply-To: References: <152782037805.14857.15616903006929369460.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Win32) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 198.252.137.10 X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: john@jck.com X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on bsa2.jck.com); SAEximRunCond expanded to false Archived-At: Subject: Re: [art] [ietf-smtp] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-shafranovich-privacy-mailbox-00.txt X-BeenThere: art@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.26 Precedence: list List-Id: Applications and Real-Time Area Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2018 21:53:19 -0000 Yakov, A quick comment about the general idea of these reserved mailbox names. They were a good idea when we started using them (and, of course, "Postmaster" goes back to before our current model of email). However, in today's environment, one of the nicest gifts we can give to the spammers and other spreaders of chaos and DoS attacks on email servers is to hand them a list of local-parts of addresses that every mail server that supports delivery to local mailboxes is required or strongly encouraged to support. Postmaster accounts now get enough unwanted mail that has nothing to do with the Postmaster function that a large fraction of those who try to read and understand that traffic on a daily or better schedule probably have too much time on their hands. So, please analyze, what happens if a "privacy" address (along with "Postmaster", "abuse", etc., addresses) is put up and immediately overwhelmed by spam. Is it worthwhile anyway? Do you have a good model for mitigating the abusive traffic to an address that ought to be open to traffic from "strange" sources to make sure that complaints are either received or the sender understands that they were not. And then, if you sti8ll think going ahead with this is a good idea, please include that analysis in your I-D. Just my opinion and speaking for no one else. best, john --On Wednesday, June 13, 2018 16:33 -0400 Yakov Shafranovich wrote: > I originally posted this to the DISPATCH list but Murray > Kucherawy recommended that these two lists may be a more > appropriate forum to solicit feedback. Thank you in advance. > > Draft: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-shafranovich-priva > cy-mailbox > > Abstract: > Multiple Internet standards describe common mailbox names > (mailbox @ domain) to be used by organizations for > operational and business functions. This document defines > a new mailbox called "privacy" that SHOULD be used for > contacting domain name owners about privacy issues. From nobody Wed Jun 13 15:15:28 2018 Return-Path: X-Original-To: art@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: art@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C94C1130EB1 for ; Wed, 13 Jun 2018 15:15:21 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.911 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.911 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_DKIMWL_WL_MED=-0.01] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=nightwatchcybersecurity-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id LNizYo_B61qX for ; Wed, 13 Jun 2018 15:15:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-pg0-x242.google.com (mail-pg0-x242.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c05::242]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5E928130EAE for ; Wed, 13 Jun 2018 15:15:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-pg0-x242.google.com with SMTP id d2-v6so1920841pga.13 for ; Wed, 13 Jun 2018 15:15:19 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=nightwatchcybersecurity-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=oCF5ydS38yCljUZLrgufVS35p/ugwpC4JosacUYhdVA=; b=uqtd/zx0OoB3vPUZqBaxq2rP0ZxyOwXvtaqCjgcMx3CB9xzWkutr+cXFK6219ROqs9 z0UpRLY9cC8ECZU+wXnEHOpEJoSSX3wfNIvcreuXRAfLyXOp+6j/ONiuI9KDxneYvflF +Aau/KnTBOCRImGHBruwgqkmqRjyPB+gS7bjv8ghAcdpT04obMkzboDpb2hTTU4/ngxJ Licd232OZkkjxKAeX8nAqDgCIWn+0QhCYHfX90nPAD66e4r0/dH0T6YJom7vbwiOBraO rjEwwYQ0vSTEtW5L32Ug0XG3TGzo+yDPP0FWuy97YAYQaeG5L9giRkjQ59oQ1WANWumU UXEg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=oCF5ydS38yCljUZLrgufVS35p/ugwpC4JosacUYhdVA=; b=QdYlZZ/+WHFPlcc4v26/bJ5AxBikSMYHMwQ6lC55xpykojm9n7QCVR5tyFuAqSF7Rl ipyqO46kHvCarI3Jlb65R5pUUEg2MWjNDh0t2dBxI9kKgNZvMfXWy3Fu80RADm/ULvet 70UfYOSKVvhVu2gOl+Tx8Sj2yKkceRlnUV7I+YnmelPYkuVlxoqNvTDqSn0MWynyOdon NXQSDYhEzHiS3KEmHK9O2OxWogBFtTmX2bSz4ywVKcgH70CAzySX5pxV6piJTAoHYqBN Z5SjWkgOk23joC33yiKXePlBd/Y2nOdQ5wuiuLv2Iswv/VaHnAH9qdBXF2jXVjEjHEJx DD9Q== X-Gm-Message-State: APt69E3wyhpuZ+FgdNUU9n0qOD14qrtYjWbN8Xr7tLszIOolmtfzwKp9 KPw4r+JbBseI5P7bc/PVC4uwCdYeffFfXdvcKbFcGSLn X-Google-Smtp-Source: ADUXVKLJ+idMzJVFkF+Z0OyMsh7M5ktD34RUdMJKsDIaGNLoOsaPlTz3JXAw6Mxd3u9iXZzRUMq0iv7SYZtMp8IQqBw= X-Received: by 2002:a62:3f4f:: with SMTP id m76-v6mr6727058pfa.109.1528928118859; Wed, 13 Jun 2018 15:15:18 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 2002:a17:90a:94c3:0:0:0:0 with HTTP; Wed, 13 Jun 2018 15:14:38 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <5A59244C179E2AA59292B66B@PSB> References: <152782037805.14857.15616903006929369460.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <5A59244C179E2AA59292B66B@PSB> From: Yakov Shafranovich Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2018 18:14:38 -0400 Message-ID: To: John C Klensin Cc: art@ietf.org, ietf-smtp@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Archived-At: Subject: Re: [art] [ietf-smtp] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-shafranovich-privacy-mailbox-00.txt X-BeenThere: art@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.26 Precedence: list List-Id: Applications and Real-Time Area Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2018 22:15:22 -0000 John, Thank you for the feedback, I will certainly try to address it. As a side note - the spamming issue is an issue for all reserved names - perhaps it is time to deprecate majority of RFC 2142, except for whatever is actually being used? Thanks On Wed, Jun 13, 2018 at 5:53 PM, John C Klensin wrote: > Yakov, > > A quick comment about the general idea of these reserved mailbox > names. They were a good idea when we started using them (and, > of course, "Postmaster" goes back to before our current model of > email). However, in today's environment, one of the nicest > gifts we can give to the spammers and other spreaders of chaos > and DoS attacks on email servers is to hand them a list of > local-parts of addresses that every mail server that supports > delivery to local mailboxes is required or strongly encouraged > to support. Postmaster accounts now get enough unwanted mail > that has nothing to do with the Postmaster function that a large > fraction of those who try to read and understand that traffic on > a daily or better schedule probably have too much time on their > hands. > > So, please analyze, what happens if a "privacy" address (along > with "Postmaster", "abuse", etc., addresses) is put up and > immediately overwhelmed by spam. Is it worthwhile anyway? Do > you have a good model for mitigating the abusive traffic to an > address that ought to be open to traffic from "strange" sources > to make sure that complaints are either received or the sender > understands that they were not. And then, if you sti8ll think > going ahead with this is a good idea, please include that > analysis in your I-D. > > Just my opinion and speaking for no one else. > best, > john > > > --On Wednesday, June 13, 2018 16:33 -0400 Yakov Shafranovich > wrote: > >> I originally posted this to the DISPATCH list but Murray >> Kucherawy recommended that these two lists may be a more >> appropriate forum to solicit feedback. Thank you in advance. >> >> Draft: >> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-shafranovich-priva >> cy-mailbox >> >> Abstract: >> Multiple Internet standards describe common mailbox names >> (mailbox @ domain) to be used by organizations for >> operational and business functions. This document defines >> a new mailbox called "privacy" that SHOULD be used for >> contacting domain name owners about privacy issues. > > > > From nobody Wed Jun 13 15:31:58 2018 Return-Path: X-Original-To: art@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: art@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5104A130E96 for ; Wed, 13 Jun 2018 15:31:51 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.201 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.201 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id OlskqQNRhrpZ for ; Wed, 13 Jun 2018 15:31:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from omr2.cc.vt.edu (omr2.cc.ipv6.vt.edu [IPv6:2607:b400:92:8400:0:33:fb76:806e]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D5045130EAA for ; Wed, 13 Jun 2018 15:31:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mr4.cc.vt.edu (mr4.cc.vt.edu [IPv6:2607:b400:92:8300:0:7b:e2b1:6a29]) by omr2.cc.vt.edu (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id w5DMVlCr015927 for ; Wed, 13 Jun 2018 18:31:47 -0400 Received: from mail-qk0-f199.google.com (mail-qk0-f199.google.com [209.85.220.199]) by mr4.cc.vt.edu (8.14.7/8.14.7) with ESMTP id w5DMVgij021282 for ; Wed, 13 Jun 2018 18:31:47 -0400 Received: by mail-qk0-f199.google.com with SMTP id g2-v6so3322442qkm.13 for ; Wed, 13 Jun 2018 15:31:47 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:sender:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:content-transfer-encoding:date:message-id; bh=6p8sgEIiQfZWEzYQnYdSmYIDbmBm1D0jNUH7sbXShe4=; b=kConDswOPxG7VJSle6t7pO0MAC9XQqV9KwIdunzWhQw9IN7/LN2QWIFxcgyaez96zf tNpD936bIt+8fLuSepEJyULNiZlGOyw/HimQMPmzgs8ExY2a2jyOCEP8k36jLJQwmhAF HlvGPNgdUMBvJsdIrWSIQAfN5kZnpyvH27U32hrTdE2xQebqC2SGokSN4bKr0ZBZON/T yzzzBMGGm2cnU44bReBfnKKZrB+7lWhYV+wL8DkkGPAQC4hRsHNB0bP/ndi3PK8oNmaa 4KPQ3/mIDaMP7hQpJtgcewIAktZZjdmPAHJKAuJvIhtsmUfAHzKq0Xjqh1hLgPIT/DFd rdtg== X-Gm-Message-State: APt69E1QS2fnjRhHei6XJKQGaTojXbXGzn1j8GUu2QZ57FMnRPf1M28p rYDrzTIfVrQELt/YhDiw1oHog9RxcEWOwZFmZfGyHY+xDDiw4dnpCwIvPJBEKH4uDUjpV8ewbGV OVu9xgirJy+Z10g== X-Received: by 2002:ac8:3886:: with SMTP id f6-v6mr36999qtc.165.1528929102511; Wed, 13 Jun 2018 15:31:42 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: ADUXVKKTWAJN7EYk0V8S6Wi1BstI+xodPJKszg8cGu3ibvZRTxBRqcH0/V6LcWQYS/ogqbnQv2ssTw== X-Received: by 2002:ac8:3886:: with SMTP id f6-v6mr36980qtc.165.1528929102313; Wed, 13 Jun 2018 15:31:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from turing-police.cc.vt.edu ([2607:b400:24:0:3d15:f48a:7f02:24d5]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id d6-v6sm3368217qta.61.2018.06.13.15.31.40 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-CHACHA20-POLY1305 bits=256/256); Wed, 13 Jun 2018 15:31:40 -0700 (PDT) Sender: Valdis Kletnieks From: valdis.kletnieks@vt.edu X-Google-Original-From: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu X-Mailer: exmh version 2.8.0 04/21/2017 with nmh-1.7+dev To: Yakov Shafranovich Cc: John C Klensin , art@ietf.org, ietf-smtp@ietf.org In-Reply-To: References: <152782037805.14857.15616903006929369460.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <5A59244C179E2AA59292B66B@PSB> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="==_Exmh_1528929108_2661P"; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2018 18:31:48 -0400 Message-ID: <77681.1528929108@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> Archived-At: Subject: Re: [art] [ietf-smtp] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-shafranovich-privacy-mailbox-00.txt X-BeenThere: art@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.26 Precedence: list List-Id: Applications and Real-Time Area Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2018 22:31:52 -0000 --==_Exmh_1528929108_2661P Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii On Wed, 13 Jun 2018 18:14:38 -0400, Yakov Shafranovich said: > As a side note - the spamming issue is an issue for all reserved names > - perhaps it is time to deprecate majority of RFC 2142, except for > whatever is actually being used? And which role addresses would those be? How would you identify them? (Note that for the "business-related" ones - info, marketing, sales, support - there's often more mail coming *out* with those role addresses than any expectation that sending mail *to* info@example.com will do anything useful...) Bonus points for determining what to do with role addresses for domains that exist only to prevent typosquatters from monetizing near misses, or owned by the typosquatters. Compare and contrast coke.com and c0ke.com (oh versus zero). --==_Exmh_1528929108_2661P Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Comment: Exmh version 2.8.0 04/21/2017 iQEVAwUBWyGbVI0DS38y7CIcAQK+BQf9H8cS4i23dxhwOTL4F952cBJnsjLDQfEW mdhN3lmsSOO+YfWHShbvkjQeUIYIb8P5e5fkFtLaaf1owXFznWlgeTz7C1wX2R/6 sy6LA7+qg84hQSHamqTAatt5+hpqj+SaCDlAe17+C12Nbv7ZxgZgv6/Y841X9bst RUFSudzpqzR2ivDFqktPLWBMgI8DyjFA8rN08VjyvnkpL88jB0HEKdXsWBNpoBsX pRzUh/p6z6t5YbPcfiXM/qQjjnn81FH/kRsyn4Ja3SgVdopZOJ7gP45krrkOJQKF yVw+DC4tbwe7z0URYFQKYDEAWCWpH+JXDW/MUH3E/2AG19uUfUmodw== =g2K/ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --==_Exmh_1528929108_2661P-- From nobody Wed Jun 13 20:57:47 2018 Return-Path: X-Original-To: art@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: art@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2FF6E130E4C; Wed, 13 Jun 2018 20:57:45 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.899 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id BcbrJzl6Uqjm; Wed, 13 Jun 2018 20:57:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from bsa2.jck.com (bsa2.jck.com [70.88.254.51]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AF462130DDB; Wed, 13 Jun 2018 20:57:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [198.252.137.10] (helo=PSB) by bsa2.jck.com with esmtp (Exim 4.82 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1fTJOH-000APS-DJ; Wed, 13 Jun 2018 23:57:41 -0400 Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2018 23:57:36 -0400 From: John C Klensin To: Yakov Shafranovich cc: art@ietf.org, ietf-smtp@ietf.org Message-ID: <8E04CBEC1D4DB5260BD4E6E3@PSB> In-Reply-To: References: <152782037805.14857.15616903006929369460.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <5A59244C179E2AA59292B66B@PSB> X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Win32) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 198.252.137.10 X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: john-ietf@jck.com X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on bsa2.jck.com); SAEximRunCond expanded to false Archived-At: Subject: Re: [art] [ietf-smtp] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-shafranovich-privacy-mailbox-00.txt X-BeenThere: art@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.26 Precedence: list List-Id: Applications and Real-Time Area Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2018 03:57:45 -0000 --On Wednesday, June 13, 2018 18:14 -0400 Yakov Shafranovich wrote: > John, > > Thank you for the feedback, I will certainly try to address it. > As a side note - the spamming issue is an issue for all > reserved names - perhaps it is time to deprecate majority of > RFC 2142, except for whatever is actually being used? Noting Valdis's comment as well, my personal guess it that attempting to do that would cause sufficient noise that actually deciding on the list of names to deprecate and then doing it would cost far more in resources than it would be likely to gain. But, from my point of view, if you want to try it, write the I-D and go for it. best, john