Re: [apps-discuss] I-D Action: draft-ietf-appsawg-malformed-mail-02.txt

["John Levine" <[e-mail]>]

> aim for Standards Track, or if instead I should avoid use of RFC2119
> language and make leave it Informational.

I'd prefer that it stay informational.  It seems to me that standards
should tell people how best to interoperate, and in this case the best
thing to do is to read the fripping specs and use the correct syntax.
This draft is offering advice how to try to minimize the damage when
attempting to recover from mistakes, which is something else.

I'd also suggest that the draft emphasize that many kinds of errors
are strong indicators that a message is spam or contains malware, so
the best recovery may well be to reject it or throw it away.
Conversely, if senders want their mail to be delivered, one of the
easiest ways to make it not look like spam is to make it syntactically
correct.

R's,
John