Re: [ietf-smtp] SMTP status codes 251 and 551
John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com> Mon, 10 February 2020 17:02 UTC
Return-Path: <john-ietf@jck.com>
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 19B2712080C for <ietf-smtp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 10 Feb 2020 09:02:39 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.897
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.897 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=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 D1pWuAnvUD7X for <ietf-smtp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 10 Feb 2020 09:02:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: from bsa2.jck.com (ns.jck.com [70.88.254.51]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EE75012018D for <ietf-smtp@ietf.org>; Mon, 10 Feb 2020 09:02:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [198.252.137.10] (helo=PSB) by bsa2.jck.com with esmtp (Exim 4.82 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <john-ietf@jck.com>) id 1j1CSA-000F33-Pp; Mon, 10 Feb 2020 12:02:34 -0500
Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2020 12:02:29 -0500
From: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>
To: John R Levine <johnl@taugh.com>
cc: ietf-smtp@ietf.org
Message-ID: <644DAD60BFC9A9FC2C84194A@PSB>
In-Reply-To: <alpine.OSX.2.21.99999.374.2002092153420.61082@ary.qy>
References: <alpine.OSX.2.21.99999.374.2002092153420.61082@ary.qy>
X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Win32)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 198.252.137.10
X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: john-ietf@jck.com
X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on bsa2.jck.com); SAEximRunCond expanded to false
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-smtp/7ni9yiGospKRcr0VpRgivt7o_3g>
Subject: Re: [ietf-smtp] SMTP status codes 251 and 551
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: Mon, 10 Feb 2020 17:02:39 -0000
--On Sunday, February 9, 2020 21:58 -0500 John R Levine <johnl@taugh.com> wrote: > SMTP has had the 251 and 551 status codes for a long time, > since RFC 788 in 1981. The 251 code means (roughly) I'll > accept this address but I'll forward it to <x>, and 551 means > address rejected, send it to <x> instead. The idea is that the > sending system should note the <x> address so in future it > sends mail directly there. > > Did anyone every actually implement these, and in particular > the sender side to remember and redirect? You don't have to > tell me all the reasons it's a bad idea, many of which are > described in the RFCs. I'm just wondering whether this was > ever real, or it just seemed like a good idea. John, If you ask me about how many implementations that are currently active and in heavy use, I don't know, but 251 and 551 were part of the same thinking that produced the VRFY (and, to a lesser extent, EXPN) commands and were very widely implemented and used, even more so as many institutions, especially academic ones, shifted from user@server.department.institution.edu addressing to preferring user@institution.edu addressing. They were especially important when some institutions were willing to forward or otherwise handle messages for a while to the new jobs/ institutions of faculty and staff who had left but did not want to have to do that indefinitely and hence wanted to notify senders to update their address books. IIR, there were even a few MUAs around that would pick the information up and turn it into a "do you want to update the address in your address book?" questions to the users. My very vague recollection is that even at least one of the second-generation BITNET-Internet mail gateways supported 551 functionality. Now, in today's far more hostile world, there are, as you suggest, many reasons why they, perhaps especially 251, are bad ideas on the public Internet. I would guess that implementations that still support those codes and the associated actions have configuration options to turn them off, either globally or for mail send outside the organization or enterprise and that "off" is the preferred default. I can actually see some advantages for organizations that divide up their internal mail systems by laboratory or country (and pressure to do the latter from privacy law differences) when people make intra-company moves. But, no, one cannot get rid of them on the basis of "never implemented or deployed". best, john
- [ietf-smtp] SMTP status codes 251 and 551 John R Levine
- Re: [ietf-smtp] SMTP status codes 251 and 551 John C Klensin
- Re: [ietf-smtp] SMTP status codes 251 and 551 John Levine
- Re: [ietf-smtp] SMTP status codes 251 and 551 Kurt Andersen (b)
- Re: [ietf-smtp] SMTP status codes 251 and 551 John R. Levine
- Re: [ietf-smtp] SMTP status codes 251 and 551 George Schlossnagle
- Re: [ietf-smtp] SMTP status codes 251 and 551 John Levine
- Re: [ietf-smtp] SMTP status codes 251 and 551 Alessandro Vesely
- Re: [ietf-smtp] SMTP status codes 251 and 551 Sebastian Hagedorn
- Re: [ietf-smtp] SMTP status codes 251 and 551 Jeremy Harris
- Re: [ietf-smtp] SMTP status codes 251 and 551 Arnt Gulbrandsen
- Re: [ietf-smtp] SMTP status codes 251 and 551 Viktor Dukhovni
- Re: [ietf-smtp] SMTP status codes 251 and 551 Alessandro Vesely