IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [apps-discuss] Review of: draft-ietf-appsawg-malformed-mail-03

Ned Freed <ned.freed@mrochek.com> Wed, 29 May 2013 01:47 UTC

Return-Path: <ned.freed@mrochek.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 D0B6721F86D8 for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 28 May 2013 18:47:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id z615mHGhs3Vo for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 28 May 2013 18:47:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mauve.mrochek.com (mauve.mrochek.com [66.59.230.40]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BB6CA21F8F20 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Tue, 28 May 2013 18:47:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from dkim-sign.mauve.mrochek.com by mauve.mrochek.com (PMDF V6.1-1 #35243) id <01OU6UVMSANK007G7G@mauve.mrochek.com> for apps-discuss@ietf.org; Tue, 28 May 2013 18:42:26 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET="iso-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Received: from mauve.mrochek.com by mauve.mrochek.com (PMDF V6.1-1 #35243) id <01OU5J2573CW000054@mauve.mrochek.com>; Tue, 28 May 2013 18:42:24 -0700 (PDT)
Message-id: <01OU6UVKSEHE000054@mauve.mrochek.com>
Date: Tue, 28 May 2013 18:42:13 -0700
From: Ned Freed <ned.freed@mrochek.com>
In-reply-to: "Your message dated Tue, 28 May 2013 21:17:24 -0400" <alpine.BSF.2.00.1305282115330.81983@joyce.lan>
References: <01OTO93GD6L2000054@mauve.mrochek.com> <20130515202613.24981.qmail@joyce.lan> <01OTOENRSJ6Q000054@mauve.mrochek.com> <alpine.BSF.2.00.1305152133120.63512@joyce.lan> <CAL0qLwb8gzOvC6eXmg+0+etuiTrdRMQyNBOk7BMns-Csfj4Wxw@mail.gmail.com> <01OTSF48H616000054@mauve.mrochek.com> <alpine.BSF.2.00.1305182237110.74365@joyce.lan> <CAL0qLwYUEsoHLs1_1Rb6ipEyjqBVLkFpTdhge_Q215=csETM-g@mail.gmail.com> <01OU6TEMJ65Q000054@mauve.mrochek.com> <alpine.BSF.2.00.1305282115330.81983@joyce.lan>
To: John R Levine <johnl@taugh.com>
Cc: Ned Freed <ned.freed@mrochek.com>, IETF Apps Discuss <apps-discuss@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] Review of: draft-ietf-appsawg-malformed-mail-03
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, 29 May 2013 01:47:34 -0000

> > There really isn't a one size fits all answer here, and it's silly to think
> > one can be found.

> Perhaps it's better to describe results than methods, e.g., if the process
> leads to a bounce, what you bounce better be close enough to what you
> received that the other party can recogize it as something they sent.

Seems reasonable.

				Ned

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email