Re: [ietf-smtp] Curious, with this now being associated to emailcore, should list name change?

John C Klensin <> Sat, 18 July 2020 19:15 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 572B53A0C55 for <>; Sat, 18 Jul 2020 12:15:47 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.897
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 ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Ctdmkz0HQ4i7 for <>; Sat, 18 Jul 2020 12:15:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B830A3A0C54 for <>; Sat, 18 Jul 2020 12:15:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] (helo=PSB) by with esmtp (Exim 4.82 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <>) id 1jwsJE-0007FG-Be; Sat, 18 Jul 2020 15:15:44 -0400
Date: Sat, 18 Jul 2020 15:15:38 -0400
From: John C Klensin <>
To: E Sam <>
Message-ID: <DE8B2C33275660E19FFA513C@PSB>
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <52D9A14B4CDD14BB4C97C355@PSB> <>
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-Scanned: No (on; SAEximRunCond expanded to false
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [ietf-smtp] Curious, with this now being associated to emailcore, should list name change?
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Discussion of issues related to Simple Mail Transfer Protocol \(SMTP\) \[RFC 821, RFC 2821, RFC 5321\]" <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 18 Jul 2020 19:15:47 -0000

You may want to have a look at the draft agenda, now posted at,
and noting that the example topics for rfc5321bis are references
to Appendix G of draft-klensin-rfc5321bis-03 (the agenda sort of
says that, but, IMO, it is easy to miss).  It is vaguely
possible that a new version of the I-D will be posted before the
BOF meets, but it is thoroughly unlikely that Appendix
names/numbers will change.

Alexey or Seth may be able to add to that, especially if you
have specific questions.

Beyond the agenda, "emailcore" seems to be a title or framework
for a lot of different ideas that may not have focused or
converged yet.  The purpose of a BOF is to move that process


--On Saturday, July 18, 2020 14:55 -0400 E Sam
<> wrote:

> Hello all,
> I'm out of the loop of the plans for the (future?) emailcore
> working group
> Any links where I can catch up and read more about this before
> the IETF 108 meeting (if I can make it of course)
> YES i DuckDuckGoed some information about it but I am still
> out of the loop a little bit
> Thank you all
> On Fri, Jul 17, 2020 at 6:13 PM John C Klensin
> <> wrote:
>> --On Friday, July 17, 2020 14:57 -0700 Michael Peddemors
>> <> wrote:
>> > Not sure what normally happens, but it might be confusing.
>> Independent of "normal", the name and mailing address of this
>> list is known by email developers and operators all over the
>> Internet.  It also consolidates some prior lists specifically
>> associated with mail headers, MIME, and non-ASCII addresses
>> and headers (and maybe others, probably including the lists
>> for the DRUMS and YAM WGs).   Changing its name (effectively
>> killing the list and starting another) would be disruptive in
>> the extreme.
>> Perhaps "emailcore" should be given a list of its own, but I
>> think that would not be helpful either.
>> > "Email Core" would have a wider scope, and it might be
>> > confusing if the list name was limited to 'smtp'.
>> Consider it a historical artifact and, like WG names (and
>> corresponding mailing list) that are chosen more for cuteness
>> than actual semantic value, accept it and move forward.
>> Please.
>> I will leave it to the BOF Chairs and/or ADs to comment on the
>> rest of this but my understanding is that they want to keep
>> the scope of "emailcore" as narrow as possible, at least
>> initially, rather than having it expand into "any email topic
>> that would be worth addressing".
>> Speaking only for myself, I note that the IETF has tried very
>> hard over the years to stay out of MUA design and issues.
>> Perhaps it is time to change that and take on at least some
>> MUA requirements (work is badly needed, IMO, in the non-ASCII
>> addresses and header space although I don't know if the IETF
>> as the right expertise to do it) but it would be a rather
>> large step.
>> > Suggestion for topic for this group as well:
>> > 
>> > Unifying all the 'autodiscover' and 'autoconfig' methods
>> > currently in place.. email client developers have now a very
>> > convoluted set of requirements in order to find the
>> > 'recommended' settings for that domain or ISP etc..
>> > 
>> > There are several independent databases out there, eg
>> > Apple's own, the ISPDB, and even some of Microsofts' own
>> > email clients no longer follow traditional methods of
>> > lookups.. It is a bit of a mess, that maybe the IETF would
>> > like to weigh in on?
>> best,
>>    john
>> _______________________________________________
>> ietf-smtp mailing list
> _______________________________________________
> ietf-smtp mailing list