IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [apps-discuss] Call for adoption of draft-kucherawy-mta-malformed-00.txt as an APPSAWG document

"John Levine" <johnl@taugh.com> Wed, 06 July 2011 05:23 UTC

Return-Path: <johnl@iecc.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 129F621F85DE for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 5 Jul 2011 22:23:13 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -110.009
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-110.009 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.190, BAYES_00=-2.599, HABEAS_ACCREDITED_SOI=-4.3, RCVD_IN_BSP_TRUSTED=-4.3, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id DIGjW2LUyAzt for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 5 Jul 2011 22:23:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from leila.iecc.com (leila6.iecc.com [IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126:0:4c:6569:6c61]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 504DD21F85D8 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Tue, 5 Jul 2011 22:23:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 41458 invoked from network); 6 Jul 2011 05:23:09 -0000
Received: from gal.iecc.com (64.57.183.53) by mail2.iecc.com with SMTP; 6 Jul 2011 05:23:09 -0000
Received: (qmail 91263 invoked from network); 6 Jul 2011 05:23:09 -0000
Received: from mail1.iecc.com (64.57.183.56) by mail1.iecc.com with QMQP; 6 Jul 2011 05:23:09 -0000
Date: Wed, 06 Jul 2011 05:22:47 -0000
Message-ID: <20110706052247.16131.qmail@joyce.lan>
From: John Levine <johnl@taugh.com>
To: apps-discuss@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <p0624060dca3991c8513f@loud.pensive.org>
Organization:
X-Headerized: yes
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
Cc: randy@qualcomm.com
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] Call for adoption of draft-kucherawy-mta-malformed-00.txt as an APPSAWG document
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: Wed, 06 Jul 2011 05:23:13 -0000

>It might be worthwhile to mention some of this immediately following 
>the quoted text.  Also, it might be worthwhile to suggest that it's 
>good for MSAs fix or reject stuff that is broken (obviously this 
>draft can't mandate this).

This draft can't mandate it, but since MSAs are only supposed to
submit valid RFC 5322 (or 2822) messages, I'd think it would be OK to
point out that existing standards already mandate it.

R's,
John

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email