Re: [Emailcore] Ticket #5: G.5. Remove or deprecate the work-around from code 552 to 452?

Jeremy Harris <jgh@wizmail.org> Tue, 16 February 2021 14:09 UTC

Return-Path: <jgh@wizmail.org>
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 CD5593A0D13 for <emailcore@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 16 Feb 2021 06:09:53 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.098
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.098 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=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=neutral reason="invalid (unsupported algorithm ed25519-sha256)" header.d=wizmail.org header.b=i39/sQWG; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=wizmail.org header.b=dBLw9MJs
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 xF-NxiRz-KxZ for <emailcore@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 16 Feb 2021 06:09:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: from wizmail.org (wizmail.org [IPv6:2a00:1940:107::2:0:0]) (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 C06B03A0D10 for <emailcore@ietf.org>; Tue, 16 Feb 2021 06:09:51 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=ed25519-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=wizmail.org; s=e202001; h=Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type: In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Date:Message-ID:Subject:From:References:To:From: Sender:Reply-To:Subject:Date:Message-ID:To:Cc:MIME-Version:Content-Type: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date: Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:In-Reply-To: References:List-Id:List-Help:List-Unsubscribe:List-Subscribe:List-Post: List-Owner:List-Archive:Autocrypt; bh=gIQhHHdbX1hnRXuEktsKFDuAi9+0i9PJycGjVwcSAx4=; b=i39/sQWGT4LA9czCrOgIZoaxAW zRAFHmBQMm0ahWLw4ONIsn5R0PkL/IX/sFC0Xg2z1EbUAAZrPDjB7JxzkRBw==;
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=wizmail.org ; s=r202001; h=Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:In-Reply-To: MIME-Version:Date:Message-ID:Subject:From:References:To:From:Sender:Reply-To: Subject:Date:Message-ID:To:Cc:MIME-Version:Content-Type: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date: Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:In-Reply-To: References:List-Id:List-Help:List-Unsubscribe:List-Subscribe:List-Post: List-Owner:List-Archive:Autocrypt; bh=gIQhHHdbX1hnRXuEktsKFDuAi9+0i9PJycGjVwcSAx4=; b=dBLw9MJsqRB1K1cy2aLE8AqWxT v7EfTUhFTxw/jNmKnl9aAf8kWKix4MbtzOcRL680uCWjxm3h267yz312xdG8hXH7Ql5HR3Nfi07Mt 6P/z3oVtnJ7w7qLGP6OgDo/QaTc//UqI8n4MPu1QrBcWtKBaq/eegfcJ7HrivjnlWqEehxQCm8Qth sXNkBoYlySlRdPtP69tRiTTAFuf+YD3KeoYcXcgKh0ihf7UJfipOasWq3UlV1E3tYk30W7kw4Sokp C/oP+3etWj2wt3cPZb6kuWFh92R7sB5zfNkx1ADdx+Brt9LHWQrS6rVjsTpAMATq2ga8UqgT0uXDx WWBhwFRw==;
Authentication-Results: wizmail.org; iprev=fail smtp.remote-ip=46.33.133.68; auth=pass (PLAIN) smtp.auth=jgh@wizmail.org
Received: from [46.33.133.68] (helo=lap.dom.ain) (from_AS 51561) by wizmail.org (Exim 4.94.114) (TLS1.3) tls TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 with esmtpsa id 1lC12z-003xYY-LE for emailcore@ietf.org (return-path <jgh@wizmail.org>); Tue, 16 Feb 2021 14:09:49 +0000
To: emailcore@ietf.org
References: <ca851fda-63ac-8739-c3eb-bde725aa25f3@isode.com> <c188413b-9337-40d8-8062-9c0f58f6cd98@www.fastmail.com> <8874dfd9-eff4-017b-da16-81db965e8f6d@wizmail.org> <5dd9b4f9-ea33-f4e3-5eef-76ef0ec99171@linuxmagic.com> <ba6b34dc-b6db-5732-f9f1-3bb089c4b487@linuxmagic.com>
From: Jeremy Harris <jgh@wizmail.org>
Message-ID: <d8c311b6-bd74-01b7-2603-424cfa669e89@wizmail.org>
Date: Tue, 16 Feb 2021 14:09:48 +0000
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.7.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <ba6b34dc-b6db-5732-f9f1-3bb089c4b487@linuxmagic.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Language: en-GB
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Pcms-Received-Sender: [46.33.133.68] (helo=lap.dom.ain) with esmtpsa
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/emailcore/l4vVwsPdqM5np3MD_fJ2LukYRuI>
Subject: Re: [Emailcore] Ticket #5: G.5. Remove or deprecate the work-around from code 552 to 452?
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, 16 Feb 2021 14:09:54 -0000

On 15/02/2021 23:46, Michael Peddemors wrote:
> Oh, to avoid confusion.. MagicMail SMTP returns..
> 
> rcpt_checks/max_rcpts.c:    return "452 Too many recipients (#4.5.3.1)";
> 
> However, the question remains.. why should it be temporary? We have always just done this according to RFC, but it doesn't seem logical, as the remote client/MTA will just queue up that batch for retry, no?

It depends what command is being responded to.

It it was a RCPT command, after several such had been accepted, a 4xx
should mean that the accepted batch are still ok for DATA, and the
remainders will need to go as a separate transaction.

Even as a response to end-of-data it's not totally unreasonable - I might imagine,
say, a disk-space check failing *because of* the number of accepted recipients.
Unusual, and I don't know if any MTA in existence does that, but possible.


On the other side of the coin, I can imaging anti-spam configured MTA deliberately
permanently-rejecting an entire message because it regards the attempted number
of RCPT commands as excessive.  So, both 4xx and 5xx are reasonable and
should mean what they mean for other "xx".
-- 
Cheers,
   Jeremy