Re: Call for Adoption: Structured Fields Revision (RFC8941bis)

Martin Thomson <> Thu, 20 October 2022 00:30 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8C495C15257D for <>; Wed, 19 Oct 2022 17:30:53 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.758
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.758 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.249, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.b=FTBUxeCo; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.b=olt1/eEn
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id l2L5x71nMHAg for <>; Wed, 19 Oct 2022 17:30:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange ECDHE (P-256) server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5ACC4C152580 for <>; Wed, 19 Oct 2022 17:29:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by with local (Exim 4.94.2) (envelope-from <>) id 1olJOw-005Zyx-I2 for; Thu, 20 Oct 2022 00:27:10 +0000
Resent-Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2022 00:27:10 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <>
Received: from ([]) by with esmtps (TLS1.3) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.94.2) (envelope-from <>) id 1olJOu-005Zxe-PP for; Thu, 20 Oct 2022 00:27:08 +0000
Received: from ([]) by with esmtps (TLS1.3) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.94.2) (envelope-from <>) id 1olJOs-00G4cW-V2 for; Thu, 20 Oct 2022 00:27:08 +0000
Received: from compute3.internal (compute3.nyi.internal []) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4A28C5C01CE for <>; Wed, 19 Oct 2022 20:26:56 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from imap41 ([]) by compute3.internal (MEProxy); Wed, 19 Oct 2022 20:26:56 -0400
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; h=cc:content-type:date:date:from:from:in-reply-to:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:reply-to:sender:subject :subject:to:to; s=fm1; t=1666225616; x=1666312016; bh=HkOgFMwpU7 n228qB90ty0K8qpkhtA1wB/JFd8qNR0S0=; b=FTBUxeCobKdXRWlzwszhh+lrMu AYcQZhRleM6uIAaUdn9Zus96V/NES710yIc+lNNNZhYWZ9S2PzjUkb3TL43mEgyO f7piYazhDFhbA0X/YxC6N3Qj76qTS+Z+SiFK9uWJNOyU+FWEnUln+XYXEicqjltB gyrxDwNuAr05XsrPB89MWMALSm9b9D8izT21fDHxtDxdry6xqy8vTd58HQGRaV4/ GI3xyUMbjAKvENKBoofF2I+R8ZSkbgj0miQ9VxsV4S4JfrJ2D6rhGmTx+EZEv4ev /se1pi7W0Qa7flK2gEcO9r+S3tZ1grWlaLzYkNV2SMylZM8lCBKVnKF0Uctw==
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=; h=cc:content-type:date:date:feedback-id :feedback-id:from:from:in-reply-to:in-reply-to:message-id :mime-version:references:reply-to:sender:subject:subject:to:to :x-me-proxy:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s= fm3; t=1666225616; x=1666312016; bh=HkOgFMwpU7n228qB90ty0K8qpkht A1wB/JFd8qNR0S0=; b=olt1/eEnZQ8TMhklAOEQld2FYS57Jb14JwyUkbyLjZrM 0UbpENw2INcvzCn2otC0eYp0SbK+EeS2NVIDRKA5H7aTN+fhtO/vIOm2jPOhm6jj 4TBLSuSPlREMROJHi2DiTHfMDH8NOBNFb1PMk6KBGhlr/nYdAiTXiLZKnHhvo209 Lhj3XfOglCvmhgYS+nOx/2olAc3BddNFjZRk5fumCpLVUMJXYkft2DwMf75DKL2W W8r3z4qEWBI7DkAJWzP2qeLc+Nu4FCO2ILXfBWo1ZAGR/ywMokEJJbG8TEmdm6MY mTR/JFJGKeNADUBtSfInw8wNK46/w4aDY4x3/WSUEg==
X-ME-Sender: <xms:0JVQY3A36IK2BhmackkXtz4-viEpuulpf_GFrUNuYMzkJDavIBz5Fw> <xme:0JVQY9hW5OHhSavxzzxXt127joQw69vUNAf1fTI4f0BRjRnaf_tlMvHl1DJrKKXuE 95VvSctz1NZaKWwJSQ>
X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedvfedrfeelhedgfeehucetufdoteggodetrfdotf fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfqfgfvpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgen uceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucenucfjughrpefofgggkfgjfhffhffvufgtsehttd ertderredtnecuhfhrohhmpedfofgrrhhtihhnucfvhhhomhhsohhnfdcuoehmtheslhho figvnhhtrhhophihrdhnvghtqeenucggtffrrghtthgvrhhnpedtgefhkeegfffhteefje ekveefteehheelgeehheevleefteefieekfefgjedvgeenucffohhmrghinhepghhithhh uhgsrdgtohhmnecuvehluhhsthgvrhfuihiivgeptdenucfrrghrrghmpehmrghilhhfrh homhepmhhtsehlohifvghnthhrohhphidrnhgvth
X-ME-Proxy: <xmx:0JVQYyliv6pWvselB6CDm2lYMQ1WTGAhWBi8dKyimixNdq8UaeXq_Q> <xmx:0JVQY5wNXfbNQ1gUk4JWK2zhDPTAxL_Zx4Lb9Bf0bjMLhl_4rcpz4w> <xmx:0JVQY8S37I_-QHQHczLU9rpaO4Ew2a6oij1H60_yF7sSoud3EGSQjA> <xmx:0JVQYzcg3jkpqHP-NtdiP0ArHrKna98jI89-w1dB8S4H368VWUk57w>
Feedback-ID: ic129442d:Fastmail
Received: by mailuser.nyi.internal (Postfix, from userid 501) id 1BD47234007B; Wed, 19 Oct 2022 20:26:56 -0400 (EDT)
X-Mailer: Webmail Interface
User-Agent: Cyrus-JMAP/3.7.0-alpha0-1047-g9e4af4ada4-fm-20221005.001-g9e4af4ad
Mime-Version: 1.0
Message-Id: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <>
Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2022 11:26:35 +1100
From: Martin Thomson <>
Content-Type: text/plain
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=;;
X-W3C-Hub-DKIM-Status: validation passed: (, signature is good
X-W3C-Hub-DKIM-Status: validation passed: (, signature is good
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.8
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, W3C_AA=-1, W3C_DB=-1, W3C_IRA=-1, W3C_IRR=-3, W3C_WL=-1
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: 1olJOs-00G4cW-V2 18ef4c8e8ffcd0a38afc1366600c0a6d
Subject: Re: Call for Adoption: Structured Fields Revision (RFC8941bis)
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailing-List: <> archive/latest/40475
Precedence: list
List-Id: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>

On Thu, Oct 20, 2022, at 11:17, Mark Nottingham wrote:
>> On 20 Oct 2022, at 10:57 am, Mark Nottingham <> wrote:
>> One thing, just to make sure folks are aware: Retrofit currently defines a few places where SF parsing algorithms are relaxed, to make parsing more successful. See:
>> Conceivably, we could move these relaxations into retrofit and put them behind a flag or mode, so that they're integrated into the algorithms, rather than monkey-patching them. We'd need to do it in a way that doesn't affect "normal" SF parsing, though.
>> Thoughts?
> I should have been more explicit: what do people think about expanding 
> the scope of changes we'd consider to include this? I'm fine either 
> way, just wanted to make sure folks were aware of the issue.

I'm in two minds on this one myself, though leaning toward the increased scope...


These changes would make it so that many more fields could be interpreted as valid structured fields.  If we think that it would be better for retrofit - and the protocol overall - to be a tiny bit more permissive in processing of structured fields, then that work really should happen in the SF spec.


This increases the scope considerably and the likely timelines with it.  There is also a potential view that says that we shouldn't add this sort of permissiveness to SF.  We also have to consider the effect on deployed implementations of SF and what effect this might have on those.  Presumably we would be making parsing more permissive, but construction no less strict, which would help deployment, but we'd have to work through that process.

I'm definitely interested in hearing other opinions on this one.