[ietf-smtp] Fwd: [dispatch] Forced SMTP redirects

E Sam <winshell64@gmail.com> Fri, 10 July 2020 02:48 UTC

Return-Path: <winshell64@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: ietf-smtp@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf-smtp@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 118BA3A0C4A for <ietf-smtp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 9 Jul 2020 19:48:03 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.848
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.848 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, FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id SsuRHTeeo14i for <ietf-smtp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 9 Jul 2020 19:48:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wm1-x329.google.com (mail-wm1-x329.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::329]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 142AB3A0C48 for <ietf-smtp@ietf.org>; Thu, 9 Jul 2020 19:48:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wm1-x329.google.com with SMTP id 22so4252599wmg.1 for <ietf-smtp@ietf.org>; Thu, 09 Jul 2020 19:48:00 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=CoEonPLIBsGC0ATrpLPMV3JF+09uO9VUU1is39rfYXw=; b=uh/hm4Zed3HzGbq/pJd0Z/mzU2IAWuN0X4m/OokHhAka+4/+35Sp638KCzcjiBob0X usLUKIxNQfDtR2OKchGZfzaSpZbnIwti6XMzKxG203JhqL61xhe2V1o3zHzGhgpAdCcX DRemW3B9oWIeQZcCARi6ygMrkFx4bB8M0rHjto1U0aeD3n62uVzSgPWeEVCHREpoGDjA /fG/jNCpVGTVArymEf8HJWapO1vwyb7YT4PPlLfpkc6pXg0qwp3t8KQwnSmtBOsN8LAi 843kTc0NEqIolyLyLkYr+vpHDMyoEKo7V3yXANFTAy4uB2XzbsZUnqCaEN4ccPiJ9qr9 W3XQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to; bh=CoEonPLIBsGC0ATrpLPMV3JF+09uO9VUU1is39rfYXw=; b=hjv1d/ZT2Ucw7x3c6b6eDtXMWYW1/n9JeJu5wuK6617mKnHCOodswiD8nfYgKUzWUH ObsId5ikkWe9Es1lpuPkUIbV7oy19DmEzCDLT2+BiEBNYfkgdY1+yWCogv/BWYSh44oN TZO30CQ/pi3MbaO8J5eCCtZ+jSyojcSzMUt8oEX+Wht3zzCHP6TuSx8VImdM8PBkQDja eAgdk6RfKd+Y0tiB9u7hPNQAvsmR+vmltG1qqz42TQvy3BvTZMwvpFVqrG/Bwri0K35C hZOLiIGOYTOtqnrgheuHX4Jyf5ZSw2qYGF7BooIfXv7XwL/mwq3qzv0b/SpCGm2kDzyX FXTQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531lHvFLjjyVxYiLtDxwWR3I0TRgcxN1HngLsYToiWcu4TJ8cKOz 1fFxNZjMJqy0GeHBeNFk22WT3qb42vYP7pHWZZ3aIA==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJz38zwxDYVT7WbkDKSISthm5K/HqcU976WRIFkUyM1off7/8ZkSW+Ta8+LPCbT0TYxX00K5gJTnmi8kv85Eqyc=
X-Received: by 2002:a1c:a993:: with SMTP id s141mr2961745wme.174.1594349279221; Thu, 09 Jul 2020 19:47:59 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAKFo7wkawgk-Yj676kE5MqK8XuebuArMexH-eOdq_Uo7ijdimQ@mail.gmail.com> <20200710015947.0BE2D1C78A2F@ary.qy>
In-Reply-To: <20200710015947.0BE2D1C78A2F@ary.qy>
From: E Sam <winshell64@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 9 Jul 2020 22:47:48 -0400
Message-ID: <CAKFo7w=MJBt0FdnCcOZCXZWdkd6Jinv4TqwdpefdoaCncbZH3Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: ietf-smtp@ietf.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-smtp/BCKsbQqNpO9LKf049Dnk4Heh9H8>
Subject: [ietf-smtp] Fwd: [dispatch] Forced SMTP redirects
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: Fri, 10 Jul 2020 02:48:03 -0000

Hello all,
See the below email chain - I thought it would be a good idea to send
this to the ietf-smtp mailing list as well.


---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: John Levine <johnl@taugh.com>
Date: Thu, Jul 9, 2020 at 9:59 PM
Subject: Re: [dispatch] Forced SMTP redirects
To: <dispatch@ietf.org>
Cc: <winshell64@gmail.com>

I'd suggest reposting this to the ietf-smtp list where people who've
been around a lot longer than I have can explain why nobody implements
551 redirects (and as far as I can tell, nobody ever did) and there is
assigning a different response code won't change that. It may seem
like a good idea, but turns out not to work in practice.

FWIW I looked through the last seven months of my mail server's logs
and the total number of 551 responses is zero.


PS: There have been some attempts at setting up change-of-address
services where you can register old and new addresses, so mail servers
could query them after getting a 550, and they never went anywhere either.

See US Patents 6,654,789, 6,892,222, and 7,080,122.

On the other hand, a lot of mail systems now let users keep their
addresses after they leave, ranging from ISPs like Comcast and
Spectrum to universities who turn student addresses into alumni
addresses. They let you forward the mail, or you can add it to
the list of accounts your MUA checks, or either or both.

In article <CAKFo7wkawgk-Yj676kE5MqK8XuebuArMexH-eOdq_Uo7ijdimQ@mail.gmail.com>
you write:
>Hello everyone,
>I have published a new internet-draft that might be of interest.
>As always, its on the Datatracker: