Re: [Emailcore] Delivered-To issues

Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it> Tue, 05 January 2021 19:22 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 F0F213A1058 for <emailcore@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 5 Jan 2021 11:22:28 -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 GURcfheFU5yN for <emailcore@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 5 Jan 2021 11:22:27 -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 6E6A73A102B for <emailcore@ietf.org>; Tue, 5 Jan 2021 11:22:26 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=tana.it; s=delta; t=1609874543; bh=uvS9XkqaAKsq0hg+xyS6DHcSjZyA5Xl+ABZ20eKdXEg=; l=2114; h=To:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To; b=CQmO7GdIKD0cSMX8pcLyuG/xEerEoWVu0UBi5mvlkkt2ZWHJtX63O7LX3ikgy1tDi cb1PJftPAy4hzKk/tlG3qDyfLzULDWBOEFVDfHJQAHKUVuk4hzb5lPHpjc3tcbtCaw e/wtXvK0Aw9POVyaWHmzWsD3VGdCk8VfkGAUSKAzqldaO8D7CB6usTN6TjAWg
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 00000000005DC056.000000005FF4BC6F.000058F8; Tue, 05 Jan 2021 20:22:23 +0100
To: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>, Jeremy Harris <jgh@wizmail.org>, emailcore@ietf.org
References: <4bc00e40-8a18-0c8c-bf1e-672e91da2330@dcrocker.net> <def122c9-1eec-8828-6c17-1adb8d4c5ed9@dcrocker.net> <0ea03115-8730-1759-58ec-a4fbcd8508e6@dcrocker.net> <acd7b050-068b-3797-ade7-ac7eb4c930c9@wizmail.org> <B912224B736BAA795EBC1961@PSB> <f6399eaa-ec58-bfeb-e232-0646df41a979@wizmail.org> <CD5B84B3DC49D3B4E56A1397@PSB>
From: Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it>
Message-ID: <9f27f29f-2b4e-57ad-3d54-c2a5e04d8c62@tana.it>
Date: Tue, 05 Jan 2021 20:22:22 +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: <CD5B84B3DC49D3B4E56A1397@PSB>
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/YwJomtLdt3_jCDkdYvuzbCf7AyY>
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: Tue, 05 Jan 2021 19:22:29 -0000

On Sun 03/Jan/2021 01:37:48 +0100 John C Klensin wrote:
> --On Saturday, January 2, 2021 21:56 +0000 Jeremy Harris wrote:
> 
>>> Should we be defining both, making it clear that they are
>>> different, and then making whatever recommendations seem
>>> appropriate about which one (or both) should be provided?
>> 
>> I agree that Envelope-To: and Delivered-To: are different.
>> 
>> I'm not convinced that this document is the right place
>> for either.  I guess there's a benefit in writing down the
>> definitions somewhere; the cost is "only" cruft that
>> obscures the minimum requirements for implementing an MTA.
> 
> My understand was that we had gotten to "separate document", or
> at least "not in 5321bis" some day ago.  I hope that is the case
> and that the perceived agreement holds.


This discussion brought up another defect of RFC 5321, methinks.  It does not 
define a straight line between an MTA and an MDA.  Section 4.4 says:

    When the delivery SMTP server makes the "final delivery" of a
    message, it inserts a return-path line at the beginning of the mail
    data.

Although the reasons for doing so are well explained, and are part of SMTP 
because of the reliability implications, inserting Return-Path: really looks 
like an MDA's job, not MTA's.  Perhaps, the text should say something like:

     When an SMTP server accepts a message for local delivery, it invokes a
     delivery agent passing to it the content and relevant parts of the
     envelope.  In particular, it MUST pass the <reverse-path>, which is used by
     the delivery agent to insert a return-path line at the beginning of the
     mail data.

In that case, mentioning that an MTA also passes the relevant <forward-path>, 
would not require to fulfill the steps (i)-(iv) of a previous message[*], 
because neither the MTA/MDA interface nor (all) the duties of MDAs are part of 
the specification.  Yet, it allows the I-D to mention non-normatively the names 
of Delivered-To:, Envelope-To:, and X-Original-To:.


jm2c
Ale
-- 

[*] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/emailcore/Vt1AboaP8j8rxnccedGvaLoPLyU