IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [ietf-smtp] How wrong is this EAI implementation

John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com> Sat, 20 June 2020 23:33 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 8B8B33A079C for <ietf-smtp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 20 Jun 2020 16:33:16 -0700 (PDT)
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 Le4MdAZq5Wlm for <ietf-smtp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 20 Jun 2020 16:33:15 -0700 (PDT)
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 7131E3A079B for <ietf-smtp@ietf.org>; Sat, 20 Jun 2020 16:33:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=jkacere15) by bsa2.jck.com with esmtp (Exim 4.82 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <john-ietf@jck.com>) id 1jmmz3-000743-63; Sat, 20 Jun 2020 19:33:13 -0400
Date: Sat, 20 Jun 2020 19:33:12 -0400
From: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>
To: John R Levine <johnl@taugh.com>
cc: ietf-smtp@ietf.org
Message-ID: <DC26ED76E7E316714AB2B820@[10.1.10.18]>
In-Reply-To: <alpine.OSX.2.22.407.2006201823060.29484@ary.qy>
References: <alpine.OSX.2.22.407.2006201429080.28792@ary.qy> <2B0EB3A9E99431F86620038A@[10.1.10.18]> <alpine.OSX.2.22.407.2006201823060.29484@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: ::1
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/AnZhwFFA4JUBPc2L1BqEpakrbSw>
Subject: Re: [ietf-smtp] How wrong is this EAI implementation
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: Sat, 20 Jun 2020 23:33:17 -0000


--On Saturday, June 20, 2020 18:23 -0400 John R Levine
<johnl@taugh.com> wrote:

>> I haven't thought it through but, somehow, converting domains
>> in backward-pointing addresses (what do they do to/with
>> "Reply-to:"?) seems more, rather than less, offensive than
>> forward-pointing ones.
> 
> They turn Reply-To into a-labels too.  Bah.

At least consistent.

Like you, I can guess why they are doing this (especially given
consistency).  That doesn't make it less bad taste, more in the
spirit of the spec, or more use-friendly.  But, coming back to
your original question, I think this is permitted and questions
about "wrong" or "broken" are matters of personal opinion.

   john

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email