IETF Logo Mail Archive

[ietf-822] Re: Comment on experimental RFC9078

"Lyndon Nerenberg (VE7TFX/VE6BBM)" <lyndon@orthanc.ca> Wed, 17 July 2024 19:48 UTC

Return-Path: <lyndon@orthanc.ca>
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 81757C14CF1E for <ietf-822@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 17 Jul 2024 12:48:16 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.91
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.91 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id BkPoD76ggGCd for <ietf-822@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 17 Jul 2024 12:48:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from orthanc.ca (orthanc.ca [208.79.93.154]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA512) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C65D4C14F698 for <ietf-822@ietf.org>; Wed, 17 Jul 2024 12:48:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from orthanc.ca (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by orthanc.ca (Orthanc SMTPD) with ESMTP id fff3c242; Wed, 17 Jul 2024 12:48:14 -0700 (PDT)
From: "Lyndon Nerenberg (VE7TFX/VE6BBM)" <lyndon@orthanc.ca>
To: dcrocker@bbiw.net
In-reply-to: <da2d57ec-6925-4fe3-9991-138fb617bade@dcrocker.net>
References: <5cb8ef6f-2b29-4a98-aa87-caad69a8362d@karlewald.de> <20240717174311.36CF98FF23D0@ary.qy> <da2d57ec-6925-4fe3-9991-138fb617bade@dcrocker.net>
Comments: In-reply-to Dave Crocker <dhc@dcrocker.net> message dated "Wed, 17 Jul 2024 12:25:32 -0700."
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <42419.1721245694.1@orthanc.ca>
Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2024 12:48:14 -0700
Message-ID: <8cf05eb9a3d2dd16@orthanc.ca>
Message-ID-Hash: CRIIPWZW5ZOLRZJJRVPNXWBQJKXAA5MX
X-Message-ID-Hash: CRIIPWZW5ZOLRZJJRVPNXWBQJKXAA5MX
X-MailFrom: lyndon@orthanc.ca
X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; emergency; loop; banned-address; member-moderation; header-match-ietf-822.ietf.org-0; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header
CC: John Levine <johnl@taugh.com>, ietf-822@ietf.org, ietf2024@karlewald.de
X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.9rc4
Precedence: list
Subject: [ietf-822] Re: Comment on experimental RFC9078
List-Id: "Discussion of issues related to Internet Message Format [RFC 822, RFC 2822, RFC 5322]" <ietf-822.ietf.org>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-822/zo7nQh5xGp-4TMSUwNxb86Buils>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf-822>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-822-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Owner: <mailto:ietf-822-owner@ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf-822@ietf.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:ietf-822-join@ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-822-leave@ietf.org>

Dave Crocker writes:

> So while it is certainly a reasonable idea, it is probably significant 
> that there has not yet been a general interest in communicating such a 
> restriction.

This sounds like a "it was so stunningly obvious in hindsight" event :-)

At $WORK I have tried promoting empty RFC6854 group format From:
headers as a way to communicate this.  But nobody even seems to
know what a group address is, so that fell flat on its face :-P

Before pushing a new header or syntax, I think it would be worth
trying to educate mail software authors about 6854 and see if we
can't get wider adoption.

--lyndon

v2.27.6 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status