Skip to content
GitLab
Explore
Sign in
Primary navigation
Search or go to…
Project
Wiki Replica
Manage
Activity
Members
Labels
Plan
Issues
Issue boards
Milestones
Code
Merge requests
Repository
Branches
Commits
Tags
Repository graph
Compare revisions
Build
Pipelines
Jobs
Pipeline schedules
Artifacts
Deploy
Releases
Container Registry
Model registry
Operate
Environments
Monitor
Incidents
Analyze
Value stream analytics
Contributor analytics
CI/CD analytics
Repository analytics
Model experiments
Help
Help
Support
GitLab documentation
Compare GitLab plans
Community forum
Contribute to GitLab
Provide feedback
Keyboard shortcuts
?
Snippets
Groups
Projects
Show more breadcrumbs
The Tor Project
TPA
Wiki Replica
Commits
74516c23
Verified
Commit
74516c23
authored
2 years ago
by
anarcat
Browse files
Options
Downloads
Patches
Plain Diff
add IMAP server, seems like there's no way around
parent
690e7cb6
No related branches found
Branches containing commit
No related tags found
No related merge requests found
Changes
1
Hide whitespace changes
Inline
Side-by-side
Showing
1 changed file
policy/tpa-rfc-15-email-services.md
+15
-10
15 additions, 10 deletions
policy/tpa-rfc-15-email-services.md
with
15 additions
and
10 deletions
policy/tpa-rfc-15-email-services.md
+
15
−
10
View file @
74516c23
...
...
@@ -4,11 +4,16 @@ title: TPA-RFC-15: email services
[[
_TOC_
]]
Summary: deploy incoming and outgoing SPF/DKIM/DMARC checks on
torproject.org infrastructure (forcing the use of the submission
server for outgoing mail), alongside end-to-end deliverability
monitoring and a rebuild of legacy mail services to get rid of legacy
infrastructure. possibility of hosting mailboxes as a stretch goal.
Summary: deploy incoming and outgoing
[
SPF
][]
,
[
DKIM
][]
,
[
DMARC
][]
,
and (possibly)
[
ARC
][]
checks and records on torproject.org
infrastructure. Deployment of an IMAP service, alongside the
enforcement of the use of the submission server for outgoing
mail. Establish end-to-end deliverability monitoring. Rebuild mail
services to get rid of legacy infrastructure.
[
DMARC
]:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DMARC
[
DKIM
]:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DomainKeys_Identified_Mail
[
SPF
]:
http://www.open-spf.org/
# Background
...
...
@@ -195,11 +200,11 @@ will start to degrade some time or before Q3 2022.
* decide key rotation policy (how frequently, should we [publish
private keys][])
d.
enforcement of the submission service for outgoing mail, possibly
includes setting up a dummy IMAP
serve
r
d.
IMAP server deployment and enrolment of all users in the IMAP
serv
ic
e
e. deployment of SPF and DMARC DNS records, which will impact users
not on the submission server, which includes users with plain
not on the submission
and IMAP
server
s
, which includes users with plain
forwards and without an LDAP account, possible solutions:
1. aliases are removed or,
...
...
@@ -305,14 +310,14 @@ process follows the [Kaplan-Moss estimation technique](https://jacobian.org/2021
| a. e2e deliver. checks | 3 days | medium | access to other providers uncertain | 4.5 |
| b. DMARC reports | 1 week | high | needs research | 10 |
| c. DKIM signing | 3 days | medium | expiration policy and per-user keys uncertain | 4.5 |
| d.
mandatory submission | 3 days
| medium | may require training
|
4
.5 |
| d.
IMAP deployment | 1 week
| medium | may require training
to onboard users
|
7
.5 |
| e. SPF/DMARC records | 3 days | high | impact on forwards unclear, SRS | 7 |
| f. incoming mail filtering | 1 week | high | needs research | 10 |
| g. new MX | 1 week | high | key part of eugeni, might be hard | 10 |
| h. new mail relay | 3 days | low | similar to current submission server | 3.3 |
| i. Puppet refactoring | 1 week | high | | 10 |
This amounts to a total estimate time of 6
3
.5 days, or about 13 weeks
This amounts to a total estimate time of 6
5
.5 days, or about 13 weeks
or three months, full time. At 50EUR/hr, that's about 25,000EUR of
work.
...
...
This diff is collapsed.
Click to expand it.
Preview
0%
Loading
Try again
or
attach a new file
.
Cancel
You are about to add
0
people
to the discussion. Proceed with caution.
Finish editing this message first!
Save comment
Cancel
Please
register
or
sign in
to comment