IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Emailcore] Delivered-To issues

Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it> Thu, 07 January 2021 09:16 UTC

Return-Path: <vesely@tana.it>
X-Original-To: emailcore@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: emailcore@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C01623A0C5D for <emailcore@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 7 Jan 2021 01:16:21 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.382
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.382 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, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.262, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1152-bit key) header.d=tana.it
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 XtzJBUrs9tLC for <emailcore@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 7 Jan 2021 01:16:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: from wmail.tana.it (wmail.tana.it [62.94.243.226]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EFEE33A0C55 for <emailcore@ietf.org>; Thu, 7 Jan 2021 01:16:19 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=tana.it; s=delta; t=1610010976; bh=rz8xsz/1ECkB2PeE343X7D5SOzK1FP2oDV3LYsX8Gew=; l=965; h=To:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To; b=A4u6vAs6AxsFMQJG+YAjBqQzgsjh+XkJGeWpHFEP+38r5WB8qNkrhvRvlyZGvmBwd FDW4QWlDipt22JGRXlAOwIKa7NBWJqrXcCysTPTPKK4AuAgdYfzdAQyB8viCy8kqHY I0iXYRmKui3GOUaEdRil2ytAtIjlgiWZhC19quO6/6S4vzM411xkLBdtCupYV
Authentication-Results: tana.it; auth=pass (details omitted)
Original-From: Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it>
Received: from [172.25.197.111] (pcale.tana [172.25.197.111]) (AUTH: CRAM-MD5 uXDGrn@SYT0/k, TLS: TLS1.3, 128bits, ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) by wmail.tana.it with ESMTPSA id 00000000005DC07E.000000005FF6D160.00000F91; Thu, 07 Jan 2021 10:16:16 +0100
To: John Levine <johnl@taugh.com>, emailcore@ietf.org
References: <20210106170718.9F6335CC249C@ary.qy>
From: Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it>
Message-ID: <bc5901e1-db8c-be83-54d9-47a48d2134be@tana.it>
Date: Thu, 07 Jan 2021 10:16:15 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20210106170718.9F6335CC249C@ary.qy>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/emailcore/6NraugowzyYW8lXfNuQ9EjZu7H4>
Subject: Re: [Emailcore] Delivered-To issues
X-BeenThere: emailcore@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: EMAILCORE proposed working group list <emailcore.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/emailcore>, <mailto:emailcore-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/emailcore/>
List-Post: <mailto:emailcore@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:emailcore-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/emailcore>, <mailto:emailcore-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 07 Jan 2021 09:16:22 -0000

On Wed 06/Jan/2021 18:07:17 +0100 John Levine wrote:
> In article <9f27f29f-2b4e-57ad-3d54-c2a5e04d8c62@tana.it> you write:
>>This discussion brought up another defect of RFC 5321, methinks.  It does not 
>>define a straight line between an MTA and an MDA. ...
> 
> I think the problem is worse than that. What we're calling an MDA
> combines two separate things.  RFC 5598 calls them the hMDA and rMDA.
> 
> The hMDA is more or less the thing that takes an incoming message and
> disposes of it, by storing it in a file or otherwise. Most MTAs have a
> few simple default hMDA and ways to call out to more complex ones
> like procmail, maildrop, and Sieve.
> 
> I don't see any point in trying to rewrite 5321 to try to separate out
> an hMDA that might be in the MTA and might not.


Some points can be made without splitting hairs.  Defining the concept of MDA 
only serves to clearly state what is part of SMTP and what is beyond.


Best
Ale
--

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email