IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

"Murray S. Kucherawy" <msk@cloudmark.com> Mon, 21 May 2012 17:38 UTC

Return-Path: <msk@cloudmark.com>
X-Original-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E88F021F855A for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 21 May 2012 10:38:39 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id aQR52AFIjC-Y for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 21 May 2012 10:38:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.cloudmark.com (cmgw1.cloudmark.com [208.83.136.25]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5534D21F8557 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Mon, 21 May 2012 10:38:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ht1-outbound.cloudmark.com ([72.5.239.26]) by mail.cloudmark.com with bizsmtp id Chee1j0010as01C01heeMc; Mon, 21 May 2012 10:38:38 -0700
X-CMAE-Match: 0
X-CMAE-Score: 0.00
X-CMAE-Analysis: v=2.0 cv=eMmRfQV1 c=1 sm=1 a=QMZKka45TBd+hNGtXG2bIg==:17 a=LvckAehuu68A:10 a=THrBGnCWI3EA:10 a=zutiEJmiVI4A:10 a=kj9zAlcOel0A:10 a=xqWC_Br6kY4A:10 a=b6nfwRhkAAAA:8 a=pGLkceISAAAA:8 a=48vgC7mUAAAA:8 a=4ZFf3yUAF4NaC8FOjPcA:9 a=k31JFiyHzDH_znwx9P4A:7 a=CjuIK1q_8ugA:10 a=MSl-tDqOz04A:10 a=lZB815dzVvQA:10 a=QMZKka45TBd+hNGtXG2bIg==:117
Received: from EXCH-MBX901.corp.cloudmark.com ([fe80::addf:849a:f71c:4a82]) by exch-htcas902.corp.cloudmark.com ([fe80::54de:dc60:5f3e:334%10]) with mapi id 14.01.0355.002; Mon, 21 May 2012 10:38:38 -0700
From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <msk@cloudmark.com>
To: "apps-discuss@ietf.org" <apps-discuss@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [apps-discuss] I-D Action: draft-ietf-appsawg-malformed-mail-02.txt
Thread-Index: AQHNNZurjX2Fq42sJEmAnfgEwj3ZypbQzF1QgADtrQCAAFJpoIABOA6AgAE/arA=
Date: Mon, 21 May 2012 17:38:38 +0000
Message-ID: <9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E00392812AB48@exch-mbx901.corp.cloudmark.com>
References: <9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E0039281271F8@exch-mbx901.corp.cloudmark.com> <20120519155630.79514.qmail@joyce.lan> <9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E0039281297AF@exch-mbx901.corp.cloudmark.com> <CAC4RtVAU6Sv+peS48b9FXwSm_F=q_DZRtEOU305rrCEofboRmA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAC4RtVAU6Sv+peS48b9FXwSm_F=q_DZRtEOU305rrCEofboRmA@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [172.20.2.121]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cloudmark.com; s=default; t=1337621918; bh=AhDKE+Af+mO8pMNvwpyOmwyWDRI/HfW+KVt+YKnqBww=; h=From:To:Subject:Date:Message-ID:References:In-Reply-To: Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; b=E/gEG8rLJPq32RYpJelEXe14iRVL1Q7DYtJjE0BH+ot9z5lAE+F3qqOYGvLkEDKlC O/khdPYubsGQ5kWB1kk/7QzO2WlpGlOcPylJNCyHLr3RCB+PBdf1RU60FL2TnZba21 NwG6/h1YfHfq+jhDeM3DhjfnoNSjs98BC04piJbs=
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] I-D Action: draft-ietf-appsawg-malformed-mail-02.txt
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: Mon, 21 May 2012 17:38:40 -0000

> -----Original Message-----
> From: barryleiba.mailing.lists@gmail.com [mailto:barryleiba.mailing.lists@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Barry Leiba
> Sent: Sunday, May 20, 2012 8:28 AM
> To: Murray S. Kucherawy
> Cc: apps-discuss@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] I-D Action: draft-ietf-appsawg-malformed-mail-02.txt
> 
> I think this is really a case where that terse method of reference
> doesn't work well.  For one thing, it's not just RFC 5322, but also RFC
> 2045.  And maybe RFC 6376 (by the way, please update the DKIM reference
> to 6376 from 4871) and RFC 4408(bis).
> 
> So perhaps, "adhere strictly to the relevant standards (including, but
> not limited to, [MAIL], [MIME], and [DKIM]), as well as"....
> 
> Matching that, I might also go back and change the first sentence at
> the top to this:
> "Many deviations from the standards specifications are considered by
> some receivers"....

I've been looking for an acceptable way to say "all email standards".  Recently the question was asked how one would refer to the DNS and all of its related standards in general, and "STD13" was the answer given.  If you look at STD13 (RFC1034), it's updated by a dozen or more other things, including DNSSEC and such.  That makes it a good reference for DNS work, because you get pointers to all this other important stuff.

We don't quite have that in email, because STD11 is RFC822 which has been twice replaced.  One would have to chase the chain to RFC2822 (which is not a standard) and then to RFC5322, and in any case the pointers off to stuff like MIME and DKIM don't exist because they didn't update those documents.  In the DKIM case, they merely updated a registry.

But all that said, your suggestion is better than what I have, so I'll hack it in.  Thanks.

-MSK

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email