IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it> Mon, 21 May 2012 18:00 UTC

Return-Path: <vesely@tana.it>
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 AC4EB21F85C7 for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 21 May 2012 11:00:12 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.719
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.719 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_IT=0.635, HOST_EQ_IT=1.245, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
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 e4gjtJ+UGuL9 for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 21 May 2012 11:00:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from wmail.tana.it (wmail.tana.it [62.94.243.226]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F0CD621F859B for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Mon, 21 May 2012 11:00:11 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=tana.it; s=test; t=1337623210; bh=XTwwXGCQ5OBdLiZow8Sc7FKk/VYcvXppoTUlFhOs5B0=; l=234; h=Message-ID:Date:From:MIME-Version:To:References:In-Reply-To: Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=NHHiCRT+Qqm97ib2Fc1sYO3oe6BISPTc17rW90kF6jpRKBzTdfhVo5VbWeP+2UuVg vhMGTdXcuiaKUfASjEpnhpqoB9ALr1EK+BasQkAwdUXapvk30/iyh90wio1NLGa8CR 8HRWJnkxDnPo2QWgOxHfQW8AmtlhB66AWNdds19w=
Received: from [172.25.197.158] (pcale.tana [172.25.197.158]) (AUTH: CRAM-MD5 515, TLS: TLS1.0,256bits,RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1) by wmail.tana.it with ESMTPSA; Mon, 21 May 2012 20:00:10 +0200 id 00000000005DC03F.000000004FBA82AA.0000075B
Message-ID: <4FBA82A9.20609@tana.it>
Date: Mon, 21 May 2012 20:00:09 +0200
From: Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:12.0) Gecko/20120428 Thunderbird/12.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: apps-discuss@ietf.org
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> <9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E00392812AB48@exch-mbx901.corp.cloudmark.com>
In-Reply-To: <9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E00392812AB48@exch-mbx901.corp.cloudmark.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
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 18:00:12 -0000

On Mon 21/May/2012 19:38:38 +0200 Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:

> In the DKIM case, they merely updated a registry.

For SPF, it was said that updating SMTP is out of the question, both
procedurally and because it's a bad idea...

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email