[Emailcore] Ticket #13: G.7.7. Does the 'first digit only' and/or non-listed reply code text need clarification?

Alexey Melnikov <aamelnikov@fastmail.fm> Tue, 19 January 2021 15:23 UTC

Return-Path: <aamelnikov@fastmail.fm>
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 67DE23A15A2 for <emailcore@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 19 Jan 2021 07:23:34 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.119
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.119 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_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=-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 (2048-bit key) header.d=fastmail.fm header.b=wVwVbjxP; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.b=AyLVRicL
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 nrF_ftDbJpxW for <emailcore@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 19 Jan 2021 07:23:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: from wout1-smtp.messagingengine.com (wout1-smtp.messagingengine.com [64.147.123.24]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6137B3A15A3 for <emailcore@ietf.org>; Tue, 19 Jan 2021 07:23:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: from compute1.internal (compute1.nyi.internal [10.202.2.41]) by mailout.west.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id BD42E1C7; Tue, 19 Jan 2021 10:23:30 -0500 (EST)
Received: from imap21 ([10.202.2.71]) by compute1.internal (MEProxy); Tue, 19 Jan 2021 10:23:30 -0500
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=fastmail.fm; h= mime-version:message-id:in-reply-to:references:date:from:to:cc :subject:content-type; s=fm2; bh=8/A3ACH23CgcPKSn/sXXiOsx7qsk8o9 0V8XQOKabWKk=; b=wVwVbjxP85NGAaP43gxIXrMPfwPn4lUeBI1xSHJe59kn3SR lzt83B4oVq6B8pqT5SCNmHBuye98TGVxi6ikiYU9PjEswMlIhTaPIISuwYL095/3 jk2fNE5pi7q4det1SIT8GLPUowxYI4B9TFutlOogw4yHgOJ/thKdrPHv1isY+DRP OWdAvVO5Q97C79pFjtLxU1TEE+MUBNbMD1HYiAamCL7O07Iqev5CKP4hCpPLC+cw PG2mF10Sb5rC867pCiX61jqTpKPYwCk32B2s7M9SAJiOnOsD/uWVuRt/kMSQTy0V prwK5IJgIYBVtjdEXNH5rbnt2eLemaqBizaTKIg==
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:content-type:date:from:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:subject:to:x-me-proxy :x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm1; bh=8/A3AC H23CgcPKSn/sXXiOsx7qsk8o90V8XQOKabWKk=; b=AyLVRicL+d9mE5PFbCPauN AGhagndC0VmqkJ12hlxHbemaKuPw8DEXbplKs+UlL/NPnmFq5tCVbglZzlkvXYgk fwEws+vZ0ACdsZYk/Am8rK8svL2ZO8B4lMQrPH8uBboaE1DCQmIwmnbotLfz8Q6i f4uARlO1QiOaMoCv5Dg/0G83iExctacN2yJr+nPNdl1bqTkXpf1cKYyaQmfgtm/p UGnblO9CfHsMknzT9FDGygKdjvQQqQ0Y+mbV+EjDNhUY3n9XxAkc1mWoNXr8Hvud DI4pBp2M10V+3AivPWt8AGjP8ARPCn2nLOf9zdn06Lyhpfyo1T8gIWjvJPwAHnlA ==
X-ME-Sender: <xms:cfkGYM4Q_j9Glbe9BGzsdSWVW9YgmkaThWpI7NsyNOLqXI5YYrPQEQ> <xme:cfkGYN5XJOy-gN9l4duNuxdmRzA2yqx4harnE0_9X6IAe2Sb9GPGGUSzTCpvrP65v r42eQ-qNqsRjjFFbw>
X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeduledruddtgdejiecutefuodetggdotefrodftvf curfhrohhfihhlvgemucfhrghsthforghilhdpqfgfvfdpuffrtefokffrpgfnqfghnecu uegrihhlohhuthemuceftddtnecusecvtfgvtghiphhivghnthhsucdlqddutddtmdenuc fjughrpefofgggkfgjfhffhffvufgtsehttdertderreejnecuhfhrohhmpedftehlvgig vgihucfovghlnhhikhhovhdfuceorggrmhgvlhhnihhkohhvsehfrghsthhmrghilhdrfh hmqeenucggtffrrghtthgvrhhnpeeitdeuhedthfevvdethfegledufeeugfdvjedvheeh feevuedtgedufeegudfhtdenucevlhhushhtvghrufhiiigvpedtnecurfgrrhgrmhepmh grihhlfhhrohhmpegrrghmvghlnhhikhhovhesfhgrshhtmhgrihhlrdhfmh
X-ME-Proxy: <xmx:cfkGYLc1c64KqE1kRLNqf06sBEuJY_MGVtf1mZiA2tRxS_FHcSFxeQ> <xmx:cfkGYBK150SltGiAoOFgAli14272rBYh3KW4MJmbtZhYPq3HTbtJ5Q> <xmx:cfkGYAIJMkjpY-sP2LNj9OowWG11rjoDWq_ONDhMWaMiSgin5q3bnw> <xmx:cvkGYKyy9p-4JuSEPcxMRQ4wd-a9zT0znOrl_r811x0s4bylwMhmug>
Received: by mailuser.nyi.internal (Postfix, from userid 501) id A2CB36F60065; Tue, 19 Jan 2021 10:23:29 -0500 (EST)
X-Mailer: MessagingEngine.com Webmail Interface
User-Agent: Cyrus-JMAP/3.5.0-alpha0-45-g4839256-fm-20210104.001-g48392560
Mime-Version: 1.0
Message-Id: <f99fb03d-f1ef-4b71-8731-5933026db5ce@www.fastmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <47407afa-6e6a-d0d2-a829-67d68fd0ee90@tana.it>
References: <20201217034150.AA9142AC1E50@ary.qy> <76CF0B1097EB28A5BDE902EE@PSB> <47407afa-6e6a-d0d2-a829-67d68fd0ee90@tana.it>
Date: Tue, 19 Jan 2021 15:23:09 +0000
From: Alexey Melnikov <aamelnikov@fastmail.fm>
To: Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it>, John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>
Cc: emailcore@ietf.org
Content-Type: text/plain
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/emailcore/fv2tWx7FcasR3RREExokZMLOyzs>
Subject: [Emailcore] Ticket #13: G.7.7. Does the 'first digit only' and/or non-listed reply code text need clarification?
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, 19 Jan 2021 15:23:34 -0000

Hi,
I've changed the subject to reflect the correct ticket number. Commenting on the substance below.

On Thu, Dec 17, 2020, at 1:54 PM, Alessandro Vesely wrote:
> On Thu 17/Dec/2020 05:46:29 +0100 John C Klensin wrote:
> > --On Wednesday, December 16, 2020 22:41 -0500 John Levine wrote:
> >> In article <6A1255A557C666DF96E19DB9@PSB> you write:
> >>>	"It should use information in the other digits of the
> >>>	code and any supplemental codes or information (see RFC
> >>>	3463) only if it recognizes them and to provide
> >>>	additional information as needed but should rely on that
> >>>	first digit if the additional information is not
> >>>	recognized."
> >> 
> >> That seems utterly obvious, which I suppose means we should be
> >> sure to include it.
> > 
> > The discussion did come up on the mailing list and it is
> > possible --although I admit it is a stretch-- to read "Whenever
> > possible, a sender-SMTP SHOULD test the first digit (severity
> > indication) of a reply code it receives" as meaning "sometimes
> > it should not test even that" or leaving questions about what to
> > do with the test open.
> 
> 
> Yeah, especially when comparing that SHOULD with the fact that the first digit 
> MUST be checked if the response code is not recognized.  As if it were more 
> difficult to check the first digit than the whole response code.  Perhaps, 
> reading is easier if "Whenever possible" is replaced by something like "If the 
> sender-SMTP does not know how to deal with a specific response code".
> 
> Actually, only some response codes are better understood in their entirety, 
> e.g. 421.  The rest are for logging and offline pondering.

I tend to agree. How about the following strawman proposal:

OLD:
  Whenever possible, a sender-SMTP SHOULD test the first digit (severity indication)
  of a reply code it receives.

NEW:
  Sender-SMTP tests the whole 3 digit reply code it receives and any supplemental
  codes or information (see RFC 3463 and RFC 5248) if it recognizes them.
  Sender-SMTP MUST use the first digit (severity indication) of a reply code
  it receives if the full reply code or additional information is not recognized.

?

(Can additionally change "Sender-SMTP tests" to "Sender-SMTP SHOULD test" in the first replacement sentence)

Best Regards,
Alexey