[170478] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: IPv6 isn't SMTP
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Dave Crocker)
Thu Mar 27 21:49:07 2014
Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2014 18:46:58 -0700
From: Dave Crocker <dhc2@dcrocker.net>
To: Blake Hudson <blake@ispn.net>, NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>
In-Reply-To: <53342CF5.3090009@ispn.net>
Reply-To: dcrocker@bbiw.net
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On 3/27/2014 6:51 AM, Blake Hudson wrote:
> The primary issues I see with SMTP as a protocol related to the lack of
> authentication and authorization. Take, for instance, the fact that the
> SMTP protocol requires a mail from: and rcpt to: address (more or less
> for authentication and authorization purposes),
Actually, for neither.
Mail from was mislabeled; it merely provides an address to send return
notices to, which is why it makes sense to permit it to be different
from the rfc5322.From value. And, of course, rcpt to specifies a
recipient address.
auth/auth functions were tacked on much, much later, which is why their
utility is so constrained. (20 years?)
> but then in the message
> allows the sender to specify a completely different set of sender and
> recipient information that gets displayed in the mail client.
Yeah. Almost like it is approximating the difference between what is on
the outside of a postal envelope versus what is on the letterhead and
opening of a piece of paper mail, which also permit such independence...
The essential problem with seeing these as 'problems' is confusing
'common' with 'required'. Common scenarios are fine, but so are the
variants. The variants often blow apart the simplifying assumption that
one can incorrectly believe from the common scenarios.
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
