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

Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it> Fri, 15 April 2011 14:20 UTC

Return-Path: <vesely@tana.it>
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 2DF26E06A7 for <apps-discuss@ietfc.amsl.com>; Fri, 15 Apr 2011 07:20:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.17
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.17 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.451, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_IT=0.635, HOST_EQ_IT=1.245, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
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 k01FnRxUHtiq for <apps-discuss@ietfc.amsl.com>; Fri, 15 Apr 2011 07:20:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from wmail.tana.it (mail.tana.it [62.94.243.226]) by ietfc.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1EB64E066A for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Fri, 15 Apr 2011 07:20:32 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=tana.it; s=test; t=1302877231; bh=3GbhrzdARO2C0y2aaZNCkLtt8Cr5YftDSG9iACR185Y=; l=765; h=Message-ID:Date:From:MIME-Version:To:CC:References:In-Reply-To: Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=fJT6EPs+7pKCTTF+xpEMAucJ4Vs3PDPLkOKbeTBj4AXyHJcnETkib8LbfIS8JPLHf Xl13Ah1zrNhDZ1DwFIHgq44F3OuD4oVl574Sv1/bepyFk+DH6027uquPxfVFWaSwTR kd0EilTvTi7TbuR/62cZnjteEJxXrMU2L1IJiC3c=
Received: from [172.25.197.158] (pcale.tana [172.25.197.158]) (AUTH: CRAM-MD5 515, TLS: TLS1.0,256bits,RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1) by wmail.tana.it with ESMTPSA; Fri, 15 Apr 2011 16:20:31 +0200 id 00000000005DC044.000000004DA8542F.00006458
Message-ID: <4DA8542F.9040003@tana.it>
Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2011 16:20:31 +0200
From: Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.15) Gecko/20110303 Lightning/1.0b2 Thunderbird/3.1.9
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: ietf-822 <ietf-822@imc.org>
References: <F5833273385BB34F99288B3648C4F06F1343319E22@EXCH-C2.corp.cloudmark.com> <CEDB17EC-80CE-49B5-91C1-FBCB0449BBA5@network-heretics.com>
In-Reply-To: <CEDB17EC-80CE-49B5-91C1-FBCB0449BBA5@network-heretics.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
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 14:20:34 -0000

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.

> If an MTA does anything at all when it thinks that a message is
> malformed, it should be to bounce it _exactly as it received it
> originally_.

Bouncing is not quite practical.  Rejecting is more viable, but it has
to be coordinated with any backup MX.

> MTAs trying to fix malformed messages, at best, mask problems further
> upstream that should be fixed.   At worst, they exacerbate existing
> problems and make such problems harder to diagnose.
> 
> Keith