IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [apps-discuss] Pete Resnick's Yes on draft-ietf-appsawg-malformed-mail-10: (with COMMENT)

"Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com> Thu, 21 November 2013 14:18 UTC

Return-Path: <superuser@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D662F1ADF65; Thu, 21 Nov 2013 06:18:50 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id dRwjFHHsjMEo; Thu, 21 Nov 2013 06:18:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-we0-x229.google.com (mail-we0-x229.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c03::229]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ED6711ADF72; Thu, 21 Nov 2013 06:18:48 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-we0-f169.google.com with SMTP id t60so5848281wes.28 for <multiple recipients>; Thu, 21 Nov 2013 06:18:41 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=1ieLgn9n1t8grh6rDMm34vtMCAtseJl6dPMjwK1x4lM=; b=PvGF+UgMQP6l9zOP3o1ZKQFJRzkXenkAy9lyilBeKaUu3Rv3QWa0YEosieG2Y2HtQx LDDSt31B6ktHw5tQ94zYq7yRJiMSXOUSMXpx48TDk9FROkEDxZOpcbK46HJN5jSlfRE4 BaJqgGyY3AhZzcdzgYyEwGLS7GbtelZOMwKmkhSd5vFFf2FS7B7QZX/9dkXgMAEXbJ9l LeV5yj/JCD9Jd2uF0/YnKeWxeheESxzRkEL1pioVPqBm5RpJ4+s8jGjMZiZaxfg+mkEx qhd9aBNJVxce/EJlJVCeQuJbJqKWAanmBa1BnlhS+R52tulA122657K2coznIXun7QT9 +ATg==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.180.212.98 with SMTP id nj2mr6048190wic.52.1385043521657; Thu, 21 Nov 2013 06:18:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.181.13.230 with HTTP; Thu, 21 Nov 2013 06:18:41 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <20131120223533.8958.23858.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
References: <20131120223533.8958.23858.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2013 06:18:41 -0800
Message-ID: <CAL0qLwaZ4uDDYmYGtOamQUKQLDQtZ7hhmAjEXMdpbEYTi5dkjA@mail.gmail.com>
From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com>
To: Pete Resnick <presnick@qti.qualcomm.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a11c223de1b62fb04ebb09344"
Cc: "appsawg-chairs@tools.ietf.org" <appsawg-chairs@tools.ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-appsawg-malformed-mail@tools.ietf.org" <draft-ietf-appsawg-malformed-mail@tools.ietf.org>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, IETF Apps Discuss <apps-discuss@ietf.org>, SM <sm+ietf@elandsys.com>
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] Pete Resnick's Yes on draft-ietf-appsawg-malformed-mail-10: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: apps-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: Thu, 21 Nov 2013 14:18:51 -0000

Hi Pete,

On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 2:35 PM, Pete Resnick <presnick@qti.qualcomm.com>wrote:

>
> Nothing that would stop me from endorsing this document going forward,
> but please do take the following into consideration:
>
>
[...]

Thanks for the suggestions.  I'll take a run at these after the telechat
today.


>
> Finally, a gedankenexperiment, or maybe fodder for a real experiment:
> What would happen if, upon receiving a malformed message that was
> determined to not be otherwise malicious, a receiving SMTP system both
> returned a 5xx to the message *and* processed and delivered the message
> (i.e., give the receiver what they want, but push back on folks who
> generate crap)? Would it help? (I am not asking for a discussion of this
> in the document. Just an interesting thought.)
>
>
If there's information available about this that can get WG consensus (and
one person has already chimed in on apps-discuss), we can add a sentence or
two about it as well.

-MSK

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email