IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Emailcore] Delivered-To issues

John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> Wed, 06 January 2021 17:07 UTC

Return-Path: <johnl@iecc.com>
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 6BB613A11B1 for <emailcore@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 6 Jan 2021 09:07:44 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.851
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.851 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, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.248, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=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=iecc.com header.b=FDgQ4IbQ; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=taugh.com header.b=QO78erMq
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 8hsMR0ZsOPHQ for <emailcore@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 6 Jan 2021 09:07:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: from gal.iecc.com (gal.iecc.com [IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126:0:43:6f73:7461]) (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 09DC53A1184 for <emailcore@ietf.org>; Wed, 6 Jan 2021 09:07:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: (qmail 88846 invoked from network); 6 Jan 2021 17:07:19 -0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=iecc.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:cleverness; s=15b09.5ff5ee47.k2101; bh=njNVtynq8fP6BYsh0k2mnnCZ+NUHwO0Tzv23kMnaMac=; b=FDgQ4IbQZFL3IxJ2EsaKIjhRqDBStmMkzCVXJHuYVByY0fog81T+dPuRM8n8Fl7FzLQVUrkmq2HBk1FqoxIkoEM2iAPkpEAvOTsXWyrjcZ7p37FhVvpgAIqqrp6/SgriDGu8hkrAx6kvi+Vfx0DhljaVtG/bbg1kS78d60pxgh57QjsDxgRu7iC0TBiPUxytwFuo/3wp9JaJwra4e31AjJN12cVsRF+ouOcRyicIsHt3rt4Aco0aBcW5ZKvAWzqTgrOsu4Xe4iZqE+07Lro7M4jabn9vztN/HJ6YIvSNOqTUP4YZyvr3zdEzpKVXHIKj3A+8l3gvfZYtQCXelggIkg==
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=taugh.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:cleverness; s=15b09.5ff5ee47.k2101; bh=njNVtynq8fP6BYsh0k2mnnCZ+NUHwO0Tzv23kMnaMac=; b=QO78erMqshlkhqcXaPRGJdXpBXtDjGT/WUZp77bluI0FmPTUkDxPC6htUoltFk6vyq6kD5To3Glr9bM0Ymr5j5uYmQdHFm7TcQv19cWLlBThozqKzsV4suS19nX5cZL4Zvugaek7ZMslZSkfmCxfJ6tYHgRjlV57QswzSd//XLJnnxhEP8blVmjB4ShhoFohp2DLKheKuIB0Nv9X3/KXSbgS1JKoKZ8KD6pWdMVgF5IBKbcPLks0d5npH8LyjyZfj5VpIeAMXcp4xNHag0vk76tuPkT3SuPxtbWD3PcArdVv25CK6Ilyp/KOEmvxtuFC7pF+Cp5oCJ2PDSjUyXEeAQ==
Received: from ary.qy ([IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126::78:696d:6170]) by imap.iecc.com ([IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126::78:696d:6170]) with ESMTPS (TLS1.2 ECDHE-RSA AES-256-GCM AEAD) via TCP6; 06 Jan 2021 17:07:19 -0000
Received: by ary.qy (Postfix, from userid 501) id 9F6335CC249C; Wed, 6 Jan 2021 12:07:17 -0500 (EST)
Date: Wed, 06 Jan 2021 12:07:17 -0500
Message-Id: <20210106170718.9F6335CC249C@ary.qy>
From: John Levine <johnl@taugh.com>
To: emailcore@ietf.org
Cc: vesely@tana.it
In-Reply-To: <9f27f29f-2b4e-57ad-3d54-c2a5e04d8c62@tana.it>
Organization: Taughannock Networks
X-Headerized: yes
Cleverness: minimal
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-transfer-encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/emailcore/XJ9DrHwfKjengmbEyj_HmJXwF8I>
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: Wed, 06 Jan 2021 17:07:51 -0000

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.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email