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

Ned Freed <ned.freed@mrochek.com> Thu, 21 February 2019 17:26 UTC

Return-Path: <ned.freed@mrochek.com>
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 8E5C9131007 for <ietf-822@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 21 Feb 2019 09:26:15 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.001
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.001 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=mrochek.com
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 jphSXskVDy9M for <ietf-822@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 21 Feb 2019 09:26:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mauve.mrochek.com (mauve.mrochek.com [66.218.59.24]) (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 5FB781286E7 for <ietf-822@ietf.org>; Thu, 21 Feb 2019 09:26:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: from dkim-sign.mauve.mrochek.com by mauve.mrochek.com (PMDF V6.1-1 #35243) id <01R3GZSAU96800ERWR@mauve.mrochek.com> for ietf-822@ietf.org; Thu, 21 Feb 2019 09:21:09 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=mrochek.com; s=201712; t=1550769669; bh=n/4L8X0mvKJ2R11cCEqWD8TVxsltvfP+ZhH8QdP9mxk=; h=Cc:Date:From:Subject:In-reply-to:References:To:From; b=cfnidr/PN9VVo/Ra0hoy6mwkPV40GoUL8W2L+QITCLuKU1e9SxFfJLGimucZScd62 UeumQ/fStlXlDX+r0BS9ghmYaPhU0nuHUno5HJu+Rt8IYmEM2M405PWGSvu9huVIJg XwHID1Hiff0xOab7kRnIOvT/VmPnyUsXOj0BpbVE=
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=us-ascii
Received: from mauve.mrochek.com by mauve.mrochek.com (PMDF V6.1-1 #35243) id <01R2YQ87SQ9C00004L@mauve.mrochek.com>; Thu, 21 Feb 2019 09:21:06 -0800 (PST)
Cc: ietf-822@ietf.org
Message-id: <01R3GZS9JQL200004L@mauve.mrochek.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2019 09:10:43 -0800 (PST)
From: Ned Freed <ned.freed@mrochek.com>
In-reply-to: "Your message dated Wed, 20 Feb 2019 23:03:20 -0500" <32277.1550721800@turing-police.cc.vt.edu>
References: <32277.1550721800@turing-police.cc.vt.edu>
To: valdis.kletnieks@vt.edu
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-822/snHj42N6wt71DWM0euTBBsrtdzU>
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 17:26:16 -0000

> Does any software out there still do message/partial?

We do. We support both creation and reassembly. Both are disabled by default.

>  We've discovered
> that both the line-mode nmh package and the exmh GUI claim support
> but are in fact broken.

That's what test suites are for...

> Is anything else out there able to do it, or is it time to heave it over the
> side?

It was never intended to be something that everyone does on a routine basis.
message/partial is a solution for a particular set of connectivity problems.

> (Probably need to double-check 'external-body' support too, but that's a different
> kettle of fish...)

Well, since every text/html part is an external-body on steroids...

> And if it's time to heave it over the side, should an RFC deprecating or moving
> it to 'Historic' be done?

Media types don't have the same statuses as RFCs, so there's no such thing as a
"historic" media type. The most you could do is changed the intended use to
"limited" or "obsolete". I don't really object to writing an RFC that does
that, but given how often I've heard someone mention the intended use of a
media type (that would be never), I question the value.

				Ned