IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Emailcore] Two extra issues

Alexey Melnikov <aamelnikov@fastmail.fm> Fri, 18 December 2020 17:49 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 B173E3A0B32 for <emailcore@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 18 Dec 2020 09:49:50 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.097
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.097 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_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, 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=GId4YYXo; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.b=h/HT1qJJ
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 pLwsIT14kK8B for <emailcore@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 18 Dec 2020 09:49:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: from wout2-smtp.messagingengine.com (wout2-smtp.messagingengine.com [64.147.123.25]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 674573A0B2D for <emailcore@ietf.org>; Fri, 18 Dec 2020 09:49:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: from compute1.internal (compute1.nyi.internal [10.202.2.41]) by mailout.west.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id D5432B01 for <emailcore@ietf.org>; Fri, 18 Dec 2020 12:49:48 -0500 (EST)
Received: from imap21 ([10.202.2.71]) by compute1.internal (MEProxy); Fri, 18 Dec 2020 12:49:48 -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 :subject:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=fm1; bh=ROPjy zbm9SrVo17puK0t1DW7/x3EW9SAOHDbqVtysC8=; b=GId4YYXodx2KvK3xdkK2m 6yV5ki5BoEPZ0UA4m52bYj4UID5/ntdiU2yz5qTkWX/nnP4cbaYNH37xUUPlTJsg cLeg89TzAc1rtNmFicqu0R3dEVQ5hAR9In2pdiJuDhwzta9qbiNr6wGN0U/M97eT 5y4Xc3Y34tdiO8ujAlcjCPc3v5O9ze1K5CruZ4LmG7VX6jPzEyucxHJM7mo+d7cM sz96tXxm3XXkRJfQLcGeQI2t9QSHexuMKaqQBzPb21q2BsC2Aiio2Lrx9RWLnE2B HEwBTdnFmlxefUb0IPw7lZ/81gwyrsjvyTt2esZ+tUIqCu2gHyci6kOg1Odz6/Vp w==
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=content-transfer-encoding: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=ROPjyzbm9SrVo17puK0t1DW7/x3EW9SAOHDbqVtys C8=; b=h/HT1qJJWd/Uos6e2Vc4a9lPOjG4v+tj2OnFAAJWtZ4KrrayWV1O2svuh wfaP3Z2Fb1xoIGogNn2UilmpT/ogHmB0frdCrpAxmflqeEPd+X2yDlcCmiDNY7jJ plC4Xtt+9q77HohupB+TYDKLJl7WZJGckOXrJDpc0xVqx+XEbaH9RJdIDqrPUXW1 35x0owbDdkf+mbiXr6IGbDCAX4MAaGzo+WUoq1ogvcrtRBWjYXWSDQDAPMNrTVgM 4UjN+WFlzSywse9MK5KLscyKKqWZqnDk8e16o3ZLPuoiDI9/DAEmI0JseJuKiLhv qCxzdZTSGb+zcAaiCMqpP1KjPsTzg==
X-ME-Sender: <xms:u-vcX3qPwFj13Mw8t0u-Bib54et8N_QgyetiuAe8hrVX8DCcOm0G7g> <xme:u-vcXxrPUiOkkcokRx9tKJ6GqOgtDU4OkYFGAp1MCqmCC_SlhpR8JrRo511DgcCtf yzo6dW4_bo99FCFUg>
X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedujedrudeliedguddtiecutefuodetggdotefrod ftvfcurfhrohhfihhlvgemucfhrghsthforghilhdpqfgfvfdpuffrtefokffrpgfnqfgh necuuegrihhlohhuthemuceftddtnecunecujfgurhepofgfggfkjghffffhvffutgfgse htqhertderreejnecuhfhrohhmpedftehlvgigvgihucfovghlnhhikhhovhdfuceorggr mhgvlhhnihhkohhvsehfrghsthhmrghilhdrfhhmqeenucggtffrrghtthgvrhhnpeelie ffleeuueefkeeljeefieehgeejtddvtdduffeufeevveeftdefkeeuudevffenucevlhhu shhtvghrufhiiigvpedtnecurfgrrhgrmhepmhgrihhlfhhrohhmpegrrghmvghlnhhikh hovhesfhgrshhtmhgrihhlrdhfmh
X-ME-Proxy: <xmx:u-vcX0Piq9_dF0Od3OgCBf5cPEP3JMfgTX7mOjM6FZrleCPmMeDHaA> <xmx:u-vcX670Hp4BXHCS0Qu-fXPmJ6bRPPoJCElZ56zW0pgS6arehfN8bQ> <xmx:u-vcX25GrtNZGemSUHjOqcsmZ2jbGEDF0jej2r9Pl3KaUnYJGyVhcQ> <xmx:vOvcX4Gv4RgoWmER9fsWyZLgNF_7P8-REwpuCKprxm8eCSrvNcxISA>
Received: by mailuser.nyi.internal (Postfix, from userid 501) id 90A826F60060; Fri, 18 Dec 2020 12:49:14 -0500 (EST)
X-Mailer: MessagingEngine.com Webmail Interface
User-Agent: Cyrus-JMAP/3.3.1-61-gb52c239-fm-20201210.001-gb52c2396
Mime-Version: 1.0
Message-Id: <a06b2c13-dc97-418c-8edd-2f1661fd39d9@www.fastmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <7d8d3332-209e-85d9-957c-dec9c0e4c830@tana.it>
References: <9ABCA62E3E54C4356D09E1EE@PSB> <20201217205413.D68C32AC973F@ary.qy> <01RTABPBJB7C004QVR@mauve.mrochek.com> <43b5a838-c94b-7690-c62f-8ef69aeb338@taugh.com> <7d8d3332-209e-85d9-957c-dec9c0e4c830@tana.it>
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2020 17:47:26 +0000
From: Alexey Melnikov <aamelnikov@fastmail.fm>
To: emailcore@ietf.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/emailcore/ojZ82m24SIq5ld6SRnIt9Ijoa2Y>
Subject: Re: [Emailcore] Two extra 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: Fri, 18 Dec 2020 17:49:51 -0000

On Fri, Dec 18, 2020, at 5:23 PM, Alessandro Vesely wrote:
> On Fri 18/Dec/2020 02:24:26 +0100 John R Levine wrote:
> > On Thu, 17 Dec 2020, Ned Freed wrote:
> >> There's still quite a few HELO's being sent by IOT stuff that supports email.
> >> And I can understand why - when every byte counts, code to fall back from EHLO
> >> to HELO isn't going to be written.
> > 
> > Is that SMTP or submission?  I think we will continue to tolerate a lot more 
> > sloppiness in submission than in SMTP relay.
> 
> 
> What is going to be gained by not tolerating HELO on port 25 any more?  The 
> server code is not going to shrink considerably, especially if the same code 
> also supports port 587.
> 
> Sometimes I use HELO for a quick test with telnet[*] if for some reason I don't 
> want the terminal window to scroll by the amount of lines that EHLO responses 
> imply.

[As a participant]

For reasons stated by Alessandro and Ned I have a weak preference to leave HELO as is in rfc5321bis.

Best Regards,
Alexey

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email