Am 21.10.22 um 02:23 schrieb Grant Taylor via mailop:
On 10/20/22 4:49 PM, Kai 'wusel' Siering via mailop wrote:
Another rule from an earlier era outlines one of the fundamental principles of
the Internet Agreement: I will accept your traffic, *subject* *to* /my/
*policies* and agreements, if you will accept mine, *subject* *to* /your/
*policies* and agreements.
Yes, but as t-online.de fundamentally breaks with this principle,
No they do not.
Oh, they certainly do.
/Their/ /policy/, which they have published on the Internet, is /their/
prerogative.
But their "policy" does not adhere to "I will accept your traffic, *subject* *to* /my/
*policies* and agreements, if you will accept mine, *subject* *to* /your/ *policies* and
agreements." They just *do* *not* accept my traffic whatsoever => party's over, t-online.de is
out. End of story.
What's more is they /are/ /accepting/ your email *subject* *to* /their/
*policies*.
No. They 554 anyone, including me from any of my 1k+ v4 IPs except for 2 of
them. Let me compute 2/1000, I came up with 0. Please correct my math, really,
really please …
Nothing states that anyone has to approve their policy or that they have to
adhere to anybody else's policy.
Granted. OTOH, nothing states that _that single outcast_ shouldn't be properly
casted in the default configuration of any mailserver there is.
As has been pointed out before, doing so *does* increase deliverability, *does*
increase transparency.
Each and every single email administrator (or organization) is free to run
their email server(s) as they choose to.
Sure. Totally agree.
But: IF it is a KNOWN FACT that they DO NOT ACCEPT MAIL FROM ANY SERVER except
those where they previously whitelisted it's IPv4, AND THEY ARE THE SINGLE ONLY
MAILSERVICE ON PLANET EARTH to do so, THEY MUST BE MARKED AS SUCH.
As anything else leads to broken communication. I'm okay with you being okay
with that, but you cannot chance sides afterwards. And this is not over yet.
giving a 554 to *any* IP per default, they should be single cased out for good
by default.
What grounds do you think that T-Online should be singled out?
I made that clear multiple times already; feel free to check the archives.
How are they not operating their email server subject to their policy?
Anyone's policy has to work within the parameters of the choosen protocol and it's
policies, otherwise interoperability is not possible. As such, t-online.de's policy is
not compatible with how the SMTP protocol is supposed to work: 554'ing basically anyone
is NOT the way to go. Besides, mx*.t-online.de don't comply to RFC 5321, Section 3.1:
"a 554 response MAY be given in the initial connection opening message instead of
the 220. A server taking this approach MUST still wait for the client to send a QUIT
[…]". They don't. And they aren't Joe Random following a bad HowTo. t-online.de is
deliberately breaking standard's track RFCs to, as it seems, gain a competative
advantage. This mustn't hold.
-kai
_______________________________________________
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop.org
https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop
