Re: [Emailcore] Ticket #14: G.7.8. Review different size limits

John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com> Sun, 18 July 2021 02:42 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 52C6F3A08F8 for <emailcore@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 17 Jul 2021 19:42:56 -0700 (PDT)
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 pgdCeDBecv6S for <emailcore@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 17 Jul 2021 19:42:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from bsa2.jck.com (bsa2.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 A1F1D3A08EB for <emailcore@ietf.org>; Sat, 17 Jul 2021 19:42:51 -0700 (PDT)
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 1m4wlT-000CtO-FF; Sat, 17 Jul 2021 22:42:47 -0400
Date: Sat, 17 Jul 2021 22:42:41 -0400
From: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>
To: Ned Freed <ned.freed@mrochek.com>, Viktor Dukhovni <ietf-dane@dukhovni.org>
cc: emailcore@ietf.org
Message-ID: <F51C0E5C4AC6703FAB7C7D88@PSB>
In-Reply-To: <01S1IPUAUTZ6005PTU@mauve.mrochek.com>
References: <20210717161657.XGPW_%steffen@sdaoden.eu> <20210717220940.E225824AAB35@ary.qy> <YPOKS9b5kmo8P+Ug@straasha.imrryr.org> <01S1IPUAUTZ6005PTU@mauve.mrochek.com>
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/jXui2fGlV8Zu_0ML5wyL7ULl0xQ>
Subject: Re: [Emailcore] Ticket #14: G.7.8. Review different size limits
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, 18 Jul 2021 02:42:56 -0000


--On Saturday, July 17, 2021 19:06 -0700 Ned Freed
<ned.freed@mrochek.com> wrote:

>> Actually, given an 8BITMIME message and a nexthop SMTP server
>> that does not support 8BITMIME, Postfix will in fact (by
>> default) do on the fly MIME quotable-printable encoding.
> 
>>     http://www.postfix.org/postconf.5.html#disable_mime_outpu
>>     t_conversion
> 
> Our MTA defaults to this as well. But it's trivial to switch
> off, and I have no way of knowing how many sites do so.

Completely out of curiosity, as the amount of traffic that does
not use Latin script increases (IMO, quoted-printable is far
less useful when most of the characters are outside the ASCII
repertoire), do either of you do the fairly minimal analysis
needed to decide when Base64 would be more compact and no less
useful?  Or provide a switch s.t. if encoding is to be done,
Base64 might be preferred by the configuration instead of
quoted-printable?   It seems like that might be worthwhile if
one were carrying a significant amount of non-Latin-script,
traffic.

of course, none of this has anything to do with changes that
might be needed in rfc5321bis, AFAICT.

best,
   john