IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [ietf-822] message/partial - is it still a thing?

Paul Smith <paul@pscs.co.uk> Thu, 21 February 2019 09:26 UTC

Return-Path: <paul@pscs.co.uk>
X-Original-To: ietf-822@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf-822@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3A00B12DD85 for <ietf-822@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 21 Feb 2019 01:26:57 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.7
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=pscs.co.uk
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 YDnJoRqtmH7d for <ietf-822@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 21 Feb 2019 01:26:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.pscs.co.uk (mail.pscs.co.uk [195.224.19.137]) (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 1A0D4130E89 for <ietf-822@ietf.org>; Thu, 21 Feb 2019 01:26:53 -0800 (PST)
Authentication-Results: mail.pscs.co.uk; spf=none; auth=pass (cram-md5) smtp.auth=pscs
Received: from lmail.pscs.co.uk ([192.168.66.70]) by mail.pscs.co.uk ([10.224.19.137] running VPOP3) with ESMTPSA for <ietf-822@ietf.org>; Thu, 21 Feb 2019 09:26:50 -0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=pscs.co.uk; q=dns/txt; s=lmail; h=Subject:To:References:From:Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:In-Reply-To :Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Cc:Reply-to:Sender; t=1550740890; x=1551345690; bh=/XvoXfGh6V4u9HnHOdKJYMdKD3+RDxxf1uKEXN6mPUw=; b=FZsNZtYgApkYsJ4VLZH5aDzON0cdvmn9uUg53c+DJE+BCHlUEXrdMjE8DgdsWbNV9TiFZ9d4 xUpjpMohVlPe/zO3kP7qXVplW4PlKD+dhIusxSNm4ZIBX2szVZyQf7z9s3ejCfCSZRJQV494TG sFoM3+JMM//lfYKnO0nNXhDYU=
Authentication-Results: lmail.pscs.co.uk; spf=none; auth=pass (cram-md5) smtp.auth=paul
Received: from [192.168.66.100] ([192.168.66.100]) by lmail.pscs.co.uk ([192.168.66.70] running VPOP3) with ESMTPSA (TLSv1.2 ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384) for <ietf-822@ietf.org>; Thu, 21 Feb 2019 09:21:29 -0000
To: ietf-822@ietf.org
References: <32277.1550721800@turing-police.cc.vt.edu>
From: Paul Smith <paul@pscs.co.uk>
Message-ID: <c12dc40c-be85-75a3-b041-4412fd3c315d@pscs.co.uk>
Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2019 09:21:27 +0000
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.5.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <32277.1550721800@turing-police.cc.vt.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Language: en-GB
X-Authenticated-Sender: paul
X-Server: VPOP3 Enterprise V7.9 - Registered
X-Organisation: Paul Smith Computer Services
X-VPOP3Tester: 12 345
X-Authenticated-Sender: pscs
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-822/BAmlxL_E_ap8Z63yqRcbPJDLkTA>
Subject: Re: [ietf-822] message/partial - is it still a thing?
X-BeenThere: ietf-822@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Discussion of issues related to Internet Message Format \[RFC 822, RFC 2822, RFC 5322\]" <ietf-822.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf-822>, <mailto:ietf-822-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf-822/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf-822@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-822-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-822>, <mailto:ietf-822-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2019 09:26:57 -0000

On 21/02/2019 04:03, valdis.kletnieks@vt.edu wrote:
> Does any software out there still do message/partial?  We've discovered
> that both the line-mode nmh package and the exmh GUI claim support
> but are in fact broken.
>
> Is anything else out there able to do it, or is it time to heave it over the side?


Personally, I suspect that it's time to throw it away. I know a lot of 
people block it because it can be used to bypass filtering.

On our server software it's been blocked by default for over a decade, 
and we've not had a single complaint that legitimate messages have been 
blocked because of it.


-- 


Paul Smith Computer Services
Tel: 01484 855800
Vat No: GB 685 6987 53

Sign up for news & updates at http://www.pscs.co.uk/go/subscribe

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email