Re: [apps-discuss] draft-ietf-appsawg-malformed-mail

Tony Hansen <> Tue, 09 April 2013 20:24 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7DB3521F982F for <>; Tue, 9 Apr 2013 13:24:31 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -106.599
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 0ATUtwWZZKuw for <>; Tue, 9 Apr 2013 13:24:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9F94A21F93EE for <>; Tue, 9 Apr 2013 13:24:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from unknown [] (EHLO by over TLS secured channel with ESMTP id (envelope-from <>); Tue, 09 Apr 2013 20:24:30 +0000 (UTC)
X-MXL-Hash: 516478fe51e8eea3-9b8819d2b586a78e35223c0e459ab4f8d8cbad1b
Received: from (localhost.localdomain []) by (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r39KOUGM029503 for <>; Tue, 9 Apr 2013 16:24:30 -0400
Received: from ( []) by (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r39KOOA4029469 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for <>; Tue, 9 Apr 2013 16:24:25 -0400
Received: from ( []) by (RSA Interceptor) for <>; Tue, 9 Apr 2013 21:24:19 +0100
Received: from (localhost []) by (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r39KOI74025884 for <>; Tue, 9 Apr 2013 16:24:18 -0400
Received: from ( []) by (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r39KOC9e025687 for <>; Tue, 9 Apr 2013 16:24:12 -0400
Received: from [] ([]) by (mailgw1) with ESMTP id <20130409202222gw1000m5gpe> (Authid: tony); Tue, 9 Apr 2013 20:22:23 +0000
X-Originating-IP: []
Message-ID: <>
Date: Tue, 09 Apr 2013 16:24:08 -0400
From: Tony Hansen <>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130328 Thunderbird/17.0.5
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <>
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.5.1
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-RSA-Inspected: yes
X-RSA-Classifications: public
X-Spam: [F=0.2000000000; CM=0.500; S=0.200(2010122901)]
X-AnalysisOut: [v=2.0 cv=HfejuF48 c=1 sm=0 a=ZRNLZ4dFUbCvG8UMqPvVAA==:17 a]
X-AnalysisOut: [=EPwpWi6_Mo4A:10 a=_nfIMGA1H_4A:10 a=SbF1SxizwUEA:10 a=ofM]
X-AnalysisOut: [gfj31e3cA:10 a=BLceEmwcHowA:10 a=8nJEP1OIZ-IA:10 a=zQP7CpK]
X-AnalysisOut: [OAAAA:8 a=CHd2X5qwFYwA:10 a=bVie2NgMm5kJ7f8th10A:9 a=wPNLv]
X-AnalysisOut: [fGTeEIA:10]
Cc: IETF Apps Discuss <>
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] draft-ietf-appsawg-malformed-mail
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 09 Apr 2013 20:24:31 -0000

I've provided comments before, and felt that those comments had been
dealt with properly. More comments below.

I think the document should just be published as informational rather
than being parked. If there's interest in the future for working on it
more, that can be an expansion.

    Tony Hansen

On 4/9/2013 3:44 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
> Since my co-author and I have been unable to solicit any comments or
> support for continuing to work on the above document for many months
> now, we are going to let it expire at the end of this week absent a
> sudden surge of interest in the near future.  If the working group is
> interested in it again at some later date, we can ressurect it.
> For now I'm going to mark it "parked", leaving Salvatore's docket
> slightly lighter.

section 8.7
    This section has a title of eight-bit data, but switches quickly to
the term non-ASCII data.

    But it also has suggestions on how to handle messages with the NUL
character (0x00), which *is* both an ASCII character and is not an
eight-bit character. (Note that the NUL byte (0x00) is spelled NUL in
the ASCII specs, not "null".)

    Should the term "octet" be used instead of "byte"?

    The title should probably reflect its coverage of NUL bytes and
stick with one term, as in

        8.7 NUL Octets and Non-ASCII Data

The document uses 2119 normative language in some places, but not others
where it probably should.