[ih] The Postel Principle

Sat Nov 9 18:02:05 PST 2019

I have found proper SPF helps a lot, but I agree the requirement of reverse DNS is particularly galling. Turning off privacy extensions and having actual reverse DNS is sometimes effective. I run IPv6 on all systems, with a significant portion of my environment single stack.

Good luck
Clark

On Sat, Nov 9, 2019, at 8:46 PM, Dave Taht via Internet-history wrote:
> Jack Haverty <jack at 3kitty.org> writes:
> 
> > Curious.  I never received that message from Brian.  Internet Managers,
> > what's the problem with your networks' mail service!!?  Ohh, not
> > you...who do I talk to?... Why are you all pointing fingers?    [Sigh.]
> 
> I finally disabled IPv6 on my email exchangers today. For no reason
> I can figure, every use of it put me in spamhaus's SBL blacklist,
> for most of the past year, if not longer.
> 
> The only thing different from the spec I do, is that I make starttls
> mandatory on recieve. This blocks at least 98% of the spam from getting
> through.
> 
> I am sad that email is dying, and sadder still that using it (lacking
> effective reverse dns) requires your mail servers live in the cloud.
> 
> >
> > I looked at that draft iab document, and the abstract brought a sense of
> > deja vu:
> >
> > "The robustness principle, often phrased as "be conservative in what you
> > send, and liberal in what you accept", has long guided the design and
> > implementation of Internet protocols. The posture this statement
> > advocates promotes interoperability in the short term, but can
> > negatively affect the protocol ecosystem over time. For a protocol that
> > is actively maintained, the robustness principle can, and should, be
> > avoided."
> 
> Ignorance is Strength.
> 
> Using my starttls example above, it would be good if we would revise
> standards a bit more often than once a decade.
> 
> >
> > I recall having exactly that discussion with Jon back in the day, when
> > we were both on the ICCB(IAB).   Several times.  My much less eloquent
> > argument was that you should fix bugs, not let them fester forever
> > hidden by bandaids of "be liberal".   If there's a bug, report it, and
> > make an interim workaround if possible.  Otherwise you're just laying
> > land mines hidden in flawed code all over the Internet that will some
> > day blow up and be much harder to fix.   It's similar to dealing with a
> > new nasty virus - find Patient Zero, contain the problem and get it
> > fixed asap before it explodes as a pandemic.
> 
> Fixing stuff in the open source world is so easy nowadays, and many
> OSes are updated essentially daily.
> 
> >
> > I lost that argument with Jon about the Robustness Principle, but have
> > always been supportive of Consensus and Code - and you pragmatically
> > couldn't get consensus unless you had running code.
> >
> > I must shamefully admit that I haven't been following RFCs since about
> > when they became 4-digit numbers.  Maybe it exceeded the number of bits
> > in some header field in my brain.  I had been fighting such kinds of
> > "interoperability" fights for a while - e.g., see
> > https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc722 which came about during the email
> > wars, errr, discussions in the 70s.
> 
> The future we live in now is about platforms, not protocols.
> 
> Slack - a chat alternative - had a 6B IPO. It will last until they try
> too hard to monetize it with advertising, or given what I know the costs
> are in maintaining the irc network, survive off the interest.
> 
> 
> >
> > Sounds like 2019 is when those land mines are becoming an issue...
> >
> > /Jack
> >
> >
> > On 11/9/19 10:15 AM, Dave Taht wrote:
> >> Brian E Carpenter via Internet-history
> >> <internet-history at elists.isoc.org> writes:
> >>
> >>> This deserves to be a new thread. It turns out to be a warm, if not hot, topic.
> >>>
> >>> On 09-Nov-19 15:32, Jack Haverty wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> In the annals of Internet History, did Jon Postel's mantra of "Rough
> >>>> Consensus and Running Code" fade away over time?
> >>> First, read this draft:
> >>> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-iab-protocol-maintenance-04
> >>>
> >>> There's a discussion thread at:
> >>> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/architecture-discuss/?gbt=1&index=jBCAqATbCy0kzt8bR_59LNlWjCU
> >> I have tended to revser the dictum - RUNNING code and rough
> >> consensus. It seems to be the only way to make progress.
> >>
> >>> As you will see, your question is apposite to that draft. I'm a bit
> >>> biased, because I was document editor for
> >>> https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1958 and of course Jon had a hand in
> >>> that.
> >>>
> >>>     Brian
> -- 
> Internet-history mailing list
> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org
> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
>
-- 
Internet-history mailing list
Internet-history at elists.isoc.org
https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history