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

Eric Burger <eburger@standardstrack.com> Mon, 18 April 2011 12:11 UTC

Return-Path: <eburger@standardstrack.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 71AA1E06AF for <apps-discuss@ietfc.amsl.com>; Mon, 18 Apr 2011 05:11:05 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.597
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.597 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.002, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 Ud3ipBGRelBr for <apps-discuss@ietfc.amsl.com>; Mon, 18 Apr 2011 05:11:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from gs19.inmotionhosting.com (gs19.inmotionhosting.com [66.117.3.189]) by ietfc.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8439AE066F for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Mon, 18 Apr 2011 05:11:00 -0700 (PDT)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=default; d=standardstrack.com; h=Received:Subject:Mime-Version:Content-Type:From:In-Reply-To:Date:Cc:Message-Id:References:To:X-Mailer; b=CWiqa12Dg+GiDg8I73NhRe8C971T5zIIKjARveGZGjKOnXOFvnjt1/wz1mTqi73PURjh7AONY6N2Y404CxS7AQjdagDKombwgCRmPDaazWA0eja4sE+vBikmkQsIDASJ;
Received: from ip68-100-199-8.dc.dc.cox.net ([68.100.199.8] helo=[192.168.15.171]) by gs19.inmotionhosting.com with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES128-SHA:128) (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from <eburger@standardstrack.com>) id 1QBnH1-0004H4-4H; Mon, 18 Apr 2011 05:09:47 -0700
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084)
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary=Apple-Mail-29-551424564; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg=sha1
From: Eric Burger <eburger@standardstrack.com>
In-Reply-To: <alpine.LSU.2.00.1104181304010.19348@hermes-2.csi.cam.ac.uk>
Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2011 08:10:55 -0400
Message-Id: <857EBD9A-2457-4A45-B3A1-8E162338757A@standardstrack.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> <3111.1302886222.968467@puncture> <alpine.LSU.2.00.1104181304010.19348@hermes-2.csi.cam.ac.uk>
To: ietf-822 <ietf-822@imc.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084)
X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report
X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - gs19.inmotionhosting.com
X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - ietf.org
X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12]
X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - standardstrack.com
Cc: 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: Mon, 18 Apr 2011 12:11:05 -0000

This whole discussion makes me think what we are really doing is changing 2822 to make these messages "well formed."

Is that the intent?

On Apr 18, 2011, at 8:08 AM, Tony Finch wrote:

> Dave Cridland <dave@cridland.net> wrote:
>> 
>> It may be that the discussion suggests rejecting, in which case I suggest the
>> document should clearly explain why, and what the implications of not doing so
>> are, beyond "it makes some problems harder to diagnose".
> 
> It does not make sense to have a uniform policy for dealing with corrupt
> messages. Some kinds of corruption are caused by common legitimate
> software, in which case you will want to treat it leniently; others are
> caused by malware or rare kinds of incompetence, in which case it makes
> more sense to reject. You can only determine which is which based on
> operational experience, and the least-worst response changes from time to
> time.
> 
> Tony.
> -- 
> f.anthony.n.finch  <dot@dotat.at>  http://dotat.at/
> Rockall, Malin, Hebrides: South 5 to 7, occasionally gale 8 at first in
> Rockall and Malin, veering west or northwest 4 or 5, then backing southwest 5
> or 6 later. Rough or very rough. Occasional rain. Moderate or good,
> occasionally poor.
> _______________________________________________
> apps-discuss mailing list
> apps-discuss@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss