IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Emailcore] Delivered-To issues

John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com> Sat, 02 January 2021 02:54 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 0DD953A0AEE for <emailcore@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 1 Jan 2021 18:54:19 -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 3HXCzcx56suH for <emailcore@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 1 Jan 2021 18:54:18 -0800 (PST)
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 ECB3E3A0AEC for <emailcore@ietf.org>; Fri, 1 Jan 2021 18:54:17 -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 1kvX3W-000OWn-3t; Fri, 01 Jan 2021 21:54:14 -0500
Date: Fri, 01 Jan 2021 21:54:07 -0500
From: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>
To: John R Levine <johnl@taugh.com>, Dave Crocker <dcrocker@bbiw.net>
cc: emailcore@ietf.org
Message-ID: <359B212EA8F6B28438D0106C@PSB>
In-Reply-To: <f7f8232d-618f-672-ea7f-23e3fd9f6732@taugh.com>
References: <20201231223339.D22303F108F2@ary.qy> <5461cf6d-270a-cf39-12c0-9754acf90ed2@dcrocker.net> <f7f8232d-618f-672-ea7f-23e3fd9f6732@taugh.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/xqbn3k0mvHOkEI2MbCuOL7lkIwE>
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: Sat, 02 Jan 2021 02:54:19 -0000


--On Friday, January 1, 2021 20:25 -0500 John R Levine
<johnl@taugh.com> wrote:

>...
> The stuff in 7.2 and 7.6 seems to be saying to look at the
> message header and only include the FOR if it matches one of
> the header recipients, but ugh.

FWIW, especially given the other text in the document that
strongly discourages looking at and interpreting the message
header, I don't read those sections that way.  Instead, I can
read them as making a strong case that, if multiple RCPT
commands have been [successfully ?] processed, putting in a FOR
clause is just a bad idea.    Which brings me to the next
obvious question: should we just go ahead and say that in 7.2
(or in the text about semantics that I hope to see soon).  And,
if we do that, should we just lose the last sentence of 7.6 or
change it to discuss other information that might go into FOR
but be sensitive?

  john

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email