IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

"Murray S. Kucherawy" <msk@cloudmark.com> Fri, 15 April 2011 16:44 UTC

Return-Path: <msk@cloudmark.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 E0156130028 for <apps-discuss@ietfc.amsl.com>; Fri, 15 Apr 2011 09:44:19 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -104.075
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-104.075 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.476, 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 01DEgojoF4Am for <apps-discuss@ietfc.amsl.com>; Fri, 15 Apr 2011 09:44:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ht2-outbound.cloudmark.com (ht2-outbound.cloudmark.com [72.5.239.36]) by ietfc.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 35F4D130022 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Fri, 15 Apr 2011 09:44:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from EXCH-C2.corp.cloudmark.com ([172.22.1.74]) by spite.corp.cloudmark.com ([172.22.10.72]) with mapi; Fri, 15 Apr 2011 09:44:18 -0700
From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <msk@cloudmark.com>
To: ietf-822 <ietf-822@imc.org>
Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2011 09:44:16 -0700
Thread-Topic: [apps-discuss] Comments on Malformed Message BCP draft
Thread-Index: Acv7eEpjy88xpyS2SLKvHto/ZccLaQAE8QAw
Message-ID: <F5833273385BB34F99288B3648C4F06F1343319E51@EXCH-C2.corp.cloudmark.com>
References: <F5833273385BB34F99288B3648C4F06F1343319E22@EXCH-C2.corp.cloudmark.com> <CEDB17EC-80CE-49B5-91C1-FBCB0449BBA5@network-heretics.com> <4DA8542F.9040003@tana.it>
In-Reply-To: <4DA8542F.9040003@tana.it>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: apps-discuss <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: Fri, 15 Apr 2011 16:44:20 -0000

> -----Original Message-----
> From: apps-discuss-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:apps-discuss-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Alessandro Vesely
> Sent: Friday, April 15, 2011 7:21 AM
> To: ietf-822
> Cc: apps-discuss
> Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] Comments on Malformed Message BCP draft
> 
> On 15/Apr/11 14:50, Keith Moore wrote:
> > I'm strongly opposed to MTAs "fixing" malformed messages (other than
> > submission servers fixing a small number of known problems caused by
> > broken mail clients).
> 
> +1, standardizing fixes implies a standard status for malformed
> messages.

The intended status of this document doesn't give any kind of standard status to malformations.  It recommends the safest way of handling them if you're in an environment where you have to do so rather than simply rejecting them.  And the reality is that we (the industry) usually have to do that, so it seems like a good idea to share the collected wisdom about the best/safest way to do so.

The fact that MTAs will do one thing with, for example, malformed MIME and browsers/MUAs do something else is a real problem.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email