Re: [apps-discuss] Comments on Malformed Message BCP draft

Keith Moore <moore@network-heretics.com> Fri, 15 April 2011 18:03 UTC

Return-Path: <moore@network-heretics.com>
X-Original-To: apps-discuss@ietfc.amsl.com
Delivered-To: apps-discuss@ietfc.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfc.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BC2C1E08CB for <apps-discuss@ietfc.amsl.com>; Fri, 15 Apr 2011 11:03:48 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([208.66.40.236]) by localhost (ietfc.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id wnAHKxgkeVgz for <apps-discuss@ietfc.amsl.com>; Fri, 15 Apr 2011 11:03:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from out2.smtp.messagingengine.com (out2.smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.26]) by ietfc.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 80E08E08C5 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Fri, 15 Apr 2011 11:03:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from compute4.internal (compute4.nyi.mail.srv.osa [10.202.2.44]) by gateway1.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 48F5E220FE; Fri, 15 Apr 2011 14:03:44 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from frontend1.messagingengine.com ([10.202.2.160]) by compute4.internal (MEProxy); Fri, 15 Apr 2011 14:03:44 -0400
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=messagingengine.com; h=subject:mime-version:content-type:from:in-reply-to:date:cc:content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; s=smtpout; bh=1baJbPfeOoM28aIKJQ4gXrO8VqQ=; b=rkIVTDdfJsfzwoM/k+jdFtpwc11GKIoP9x8kkSMYxPPvudH239vyPFImr29oM/SqZ3tLS831B5KNGFf+jHybbym1T/IOektLDXSGspTe6g6TArPkXyDuTrtXuZhObT7NH8L/bg+AqyN/Qfvt9Ty8odNxZL23kS7pi7kKVtTYLBk=
X-Sasl-enc: EnW9KHh9aI/MS/RTK0JAL48Kaux42Z7i1dE5Rh1Ak4x/ 1302890623
Received: from host65-16-145-177.birch.net (host65-16-145-177.birch.net [65.16.145.177]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 7BEF4400969; Fri, 15 Apr 2011 14:03:43 -0400 (EDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
From: Keith Moore <moore@network-heretics.com>
In-Reply-To: <F5833273385BB34F99288B3648C4F06F1343319E5F@EXCH-C2.corp.cloudmark.com>
Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2011 14:03:42 -0400
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <31CA05AC-E602-48EE-B78E-8B093B3C8CE4@network-heretics.com>
References: <F5833273385BB34F99288B3648C4F06F1343319E22@EXCH-C2.corp.cloudmark.com> <CEDB17EC-80CE-49B5-91C1-FBCB0449BBA5@network-heretics.com> <4DA8542F.9040003@tana.it> <F5833273385BB34F99288B3648C4F06F1343319E51@EXCH-C2.corp.cloudmark.com> <4DA876B6.9050700@dcrocker.net> <3111.1302886470.781218@puncture> <4DA878B4.9060007@dcrocker.net> <B5B267BE-98C6-40F3-9D37-0CE95AE5F1D4@network-heretics.com> <F5833273385BB34F99288B3648C4F06F1343319E5F@EXCH-C2.corp.cloudmark.com>
To: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <msk@cloudmark.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084)
Cc: ietf-822 <ietf-822@imc.org>, "dcrocker@bbiw.net" <dcrocker@bbiw.net>, General discussion of application-layer protocols <apps-discuss@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] Comments on Malformed Message BCP draft
X-BeenThere: apps-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols <apps-discuss.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/apps-discuss>
List-Post: <mailto:apps-discuss@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2011 18:03:48 -0000

Well, I'm all for having submission servers (listening to port 587, requiring authentication, etc.) check for *822/MIME syntax errors, and correct obvious flaws in the message content.  Though I still think that sometimes it's better if they bounce those messages, so that users can know that their MUAs are broken.  Of course there will be pressure on ISPs to support messages generated by broken MUAs.

Accepting mail submissions on port 25 is something that should have been phased out 10 years ago.

Keith

On Apr 15, 2011, at 1:58 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:

>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Keith Moore [mailto:moore@network-heretics.com]
>> Sent: Friday, April 15, 2011 10:49 AM
>> To: dcrocker@bbiw.net
>> Cc: Dave Cridland; ietf-822; General discussion of application-layer protocols; Murray S. Kucherawy
>> Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] Comments on Malformed Message BCP draft
>> 
>> I do think there's room for some sort of "if you must do this bad
>> thing, please do it this way" document series from IETF.
>> 
>> However, I don't think that would be applicable to having third party
>> mail relays repair malformed messages.  I think that's no longer "best
>> way to do something that has the potential to do harm" and closer to
>> "how to make a bad situation worse".
>> 
>> Of course, the devil is in the details.
> 
> I don't think this work is targeted at intermediaries.  In fact, I'd be completely fine with expressly saying it's meant to address processing at ingress MTAs only.
>