[dispatch] Forced SMTP redirects

E Sam <winshell64@gmail.com> Fri, 10 July 2020 00:08 UTC

Return-Path: <winshell64@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: dispatch@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dispatch@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1C77D3A09E3 for <dispatch@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 9 Jul 2020 17:08:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.848
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.848 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 1E_18YENFRaF for <dispatch@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 9 Jul 2020 17:08:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wr1-x430.google.com (mail-wr1-x430.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::430]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A892E3A09E9 for <dispatch@ietf.org>; Thu, 9 Jul 2020 17:08:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wr1-x430.google.com with SMTP id f7so4105197wrw.1 for <dispatch@ietf.org>; Thu, 09 Jul 2020 17:08:30 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=VNH0xQvDArN733j9nl5BHv9dtZs5Ox0esit52qWHBMI=; b=HRi2MYuTGtXCBwT1VUJJqhRvMBwKmD6LKlXXRPOIzrpLvkSS1yPvnnjt7uPOm/Hlne Dx/SnZijUXe+YX8jKyDlp22sCdp5ASZSc8CKKz2i+kwnD3/sGu9SUwuhcmyXsCfI07c/ SdXdeE0mHu458gIM/8JCS5yol+yY8N2X2aWgfNkb9j8rb46e1H2IoY6aHhU98M0bm5md j5MBSP50d6bY63RxqU9upa/AM1zyzTuiwNIOMckeOD0DFCE7911CrUYRnxfP3IriVfNv wfRS1V35EMah8CtEd/mH1jlEDxRZPuNNR/6zUNLI6Bk536cxLJo5ipkdwbv3jXBKLq3F fKoQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=VNH0xQvDArN733j9nl5BHv9dtZs5Ox0esit52qWHBMI=; b=bJUgbwRsRkcvVfN7Ixg4igXAHYBvSFdBOoHBdPUr1Eje62JEf/j/sFWW8l/XVhtX8l nN+DZMCijDm0ZAmo0ZFcZ43/Uhn+N78YGyClm9QBmAg6IUyEqHINtSCVN8ljzYNb6dag S8pCQRz+6eif+k78Mho1wUOiJ4lV6RQiK8eiqwaJKlGDzM+wQRTAxAu1MVKbvMfU2wVw S0CHzr2JJZGL26n6Cvsiwn2LOZsLegNMmkyfNQ2GYZT1R2X7/ONwvUvPQUM2XtlLOXa+ xAG3KTc2eeQJrhhS/gk/5YO9G8ODKzQ+X9LBDC+PUAN8oNz+U3bJ0f13ggCZGjFE9GK7 8gxQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530UIULquXR2qHBUUsZxV0iZXZk6RPnBxc6gsrkZaElVT3nTQ1sK 4tqQLAPg/N+dLf+K1XGdTPM+PytCINwQiS0NwPSe+V5v
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwoPP6t4jp2RAwWeXNHlWe/5VbGGe0qSNVR/VOluhZKDZire6lD00gaOZEbXhwQI6elCoijfy2RILzWMPPi+5U=
X-Received: by 2002:a5d:62d1:: with SMTP id o17mr63573819wrv.162.1594339708830; Thu, 09 Jul 2020 17:08:28 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
From: E Sam <winshell64@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 9 Jul 2020 20:08:18 -0400
Message-ID: <CAKFo7wkawgk-Yj676kE5MqK8XuebuArMexH-eOdq_Uo7ijdimQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: DISPATCH WG <dispatch@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dispatch/hEr1--T-pM5WOCLW0u-5ZsCURiI>
Subject: [dispatch] Forced SMTP redirects
X-BeenThere: dispatch@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: DISPATCH Working Group Mail List <dispatch.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dispatch>, <mailto:dispatch-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/dispatch/>
List-Post: <mailto:dispatch@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dispatch-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dispatch>, <mailto:dispatch-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2020 00:08:34 -0000

Hello everyone,


I have published a new internet-draft that might be of interest.


As always, its on the Datatracker:

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-sam-smtp-redirects/


Some questions and thoughts for you:


Should 557 be a separate response code or should we just redefine 551?
I want to get your opinions.



Even if mail clients don't end up trying to reach the new address or
we end up making it so, it at least mandates the new replacement email
to be included in the response. This would clear up any ambiguity with
the existing 511 response code.


Anyway,


Let me know what you think! I think its a good idea, but some people
here might think otherwise. I plan on writing more email related
internet-drafts anyway. Just want to  see what people think.


There is the mail store WG but that seems like its geared more for
protocols like IMAP than SMTP, so I have put it in DISPATCH.

Obviously if there is something like a loop in redirects or an
excessively long redirect loop; the mail client should give up.

Note: as for the NNTP draft, I'll let my friend who is far more
knowledgeable in Usenet (he even has his own server) work on that one.

Have a good day!