Re: [ietf-smtp] DSNs

Arnt Gulbrandsen <arnt@gulbrandsen.priv.no> Sun, 26 April 2020 10:31 UTC

Return-Path: <arnt@gulbrandsen.priv.no>
X-Original-To: ietf-smtp@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf-smtp@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2B0853A1290 for <ietf-smtp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 26 Apr 2020 03:31:10 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.097
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.097 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=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=gulbrandsen.priv.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 g_5cdnaAGHUx for <ietf-smtp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 26 Apr 2020 03:31:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from stabil.gulbrandsen.priv.no (stabil.gulbrandsen.priv.no [144.76.73.169]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4847F3A1271 for <ietf-smtp@ietf.org>; Sun, 26 Apr 2020 03:31:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from stabil.gulbrandsen.priv.no (stabil.gulbrandsen.priv.no [IPv6:2a01:4f8:191:91a8::3]) by stabil.gulbrandsen.priv.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6308BC01DB; Sun, 26 Apr 2020 11:36:07 +0100 (IST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=gulbrandsen.priv.no; s=mail; t=1587897367; bh=d0qtrFWvhzacc/Gk5EuaiXdXCN6SyVFFaA7SeGa31Kc=; h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=PCkt5LnqIvsvo65X59hdxWSSdWesBVjjL2XDcG8OFklVZHziOsL5ub/bp8HkhUx77 sReggaWSbGHz8F7XEyC4vvD1DD10tKEMJvNxn2R4zm2kt+71Cf2dDyuUNvdzd6nN75 4jzmaIVkOLzv3ONImiE4XNA39hH4eWFqEDxI95X8=
Received: from arnt@gulbrandsen.priv.no by stabil.gulbrandsen.priv.no (Archiveopteryx 3.2.0) with esmtpsa id 1587897366-27479-27476/9/184; Sun, 26 Apr 2020 10:36:06 +0000
From: Arnt Gulbrandsen <arnt@gulbrandsen.priv.no>
To: ietf-smtp@ietf.org
Date: Sun, 26 Apr 2020 12:31:04 +0200
Mime-Version: 1.0
Message-Id: <38e72b1d-d46d-43bc-a65f-27e32f7ffb9b@gulbrandsen.priv.no>
In-Reply-To: <01RK4LP3NYJK000058@mauve.mrochek.com>
References: <20200409230011.F039B17637D0@ary.qy> <alpine.OSX.2.22.407.2004091945050.80689@ary.qy> <20200410090430.GA75736@kiel.esmtp.org> <29104A0F-B9ED-4CD7-99B3-5A042375C68B@dukhovni.org> <r7fq4k$1nm5$1@gal.iecc.com> <C1A5FAAA942E0F363CA177C0@PSB> <20200425013624.GV41308@straasha.imrryr.org> <01RK47G4QUK0000058@mauve.mrochek.com> <22e05a3b-bf47-9d83-a340-720ca9a373c4@dcrocker.net> <01RK4LP3NYJK000058@mauve.mrochek.com>
User-Agent: Trojita/0.7; Qt/5.7.1; xcb; Linux; Devuan GNU/Linux 2.1 (ascii)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-smtp/37BJl29S41dnRujNpE6g-2Tapbw>
Subject: Re: [ietf-smtp] DSNs
X-BeenThere: ietf-smtp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Discussion of issues related to Simple Mail Transfer Protocol \(SMTP\) \[RFC 821, RFC 2821, RFC 5321\]" <ietf-smtp.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf-smtp>, <mailto:ietf-smtp-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf-smtp/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf-smtp@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-smtp-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-smtp>, <mailto:ietf-smtp-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 26 Apr 2020 10:31:17 -0000

On Saturday 25 April 2020 23:15:23 CEST, Ned Freed wrote:
> Completely inapplicable in this case, I'm afraid. One of the 
> primary goals of
> the NOTARY effort, if not the primary goal, was feature parity with X.400.
> And the operational model for X.400 was success receipts as the default.
>
> So the feature had to be part of the core. 
>
> But thinkgs change. X.400 collapsed - a casualty of even more serious
> design errors than success DSNs. Spam became email's biggest problem,
> which made NOTIFY=SUCCESS less desirable. Privacy concerns also arose that
> weren't even on the radar at the time this work was done.

X.400 collapsed, other things appeared. Delivery and display receipts 
appear to be popular features of some human-to-human instant messaging 
systems nowadays — I've heard that Signal added that precisely because it 
was popular with Telegram users. That's a rumour, but that both have 
delivery receipts is a fact.

I've no idea what the problems with notify=success are considered to be, so 
I don't know whether Signal/Telegram/Threema/… have equivalent problems, or 
whehter the problems relate to some aspect of the implementation that is 
not shared by those IM implementations. I'd love to know.

Arnt