IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Emailcore] Delivered-To issues

John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com> Sun, 03 January 2021 00:37 UTC

Return-Path: <john-ietf@jck.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 6516B3A106D for <emailcore@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 2 Jan 2021 16:37:57 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.897
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.897 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 GhznSTEit4GN for <emailcore@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 2 Jan 2021 16:37:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: from bsa2.jck.com (ns.jck.com [70.88.254.51]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 41FC83A106A for <emailcore@ietf.org>; Sat, 2 Jan 2021 16:37:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [198.252.137.10] (helo=PSB) by bsa2.jck.com with esmtp (Exim 4.82 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <john-ietf@jck.com>) id 1kvrP8-0004jd-JA; Sat, 02 Jan 2021 19:37:54 -0500
Date: Sat, 02 Jan 2021 19:37:48 -0500
From: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>
To: Jeremy Harris <jgh@wizmail.org>, emailcore@ietf.org
Message-ID: <CD5B84B3DC49D3B4E56A1397@PSB>
In-Reply-To: <f6399eaa-ec58-bfeb-e232-0646df41a979@wizmail.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>
X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Win32)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 198.252.137.10
X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: john-ietf@jck.com
X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on bsa2.jck.com); SAEximRunCond expanded to false
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/emailcore/fVOpiDj3Ub6xZ5xeJ5SxQIOUa0U>
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: Sun, 03 Jan 2021 00:37:57 -0000


--On Saturday, January 2, 2021 21:56 +0000 Jeremy Harris
<jgh@wizmail.org> 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.

best,
   john

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email