[ietf-smtp] Delivered-to and Return-path

John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com> Thu, 18 February 2021 05:55 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 2E6E13A0A87 for <ietf-smtp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 17 Feb 2021 21:55:35 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.898
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.898 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=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 0LekwDzRVlHb for <ietf-smtp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 17 Feb 2021 21:55:34 -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 EF0253A0A79 for <ietf-smtp@ietf.org>; Wed, 17 Feb 2021 21:55:33 -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 1lCcHk-000JNb-SP for ietf-smtp@ietf.org; Thu, 18 Feb 2021 00:55:32 -0500
Date: Thu, 18 Feb 2021 00:55:26 -0500
From: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>
To: ietf-smtp@ietf.org
Message-ID: <3073462D484914E07B452E20@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-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/EEWoiPtdF4RP_4TU7mw4Bh9AnxQ>
Subject: [ietf-smtp] Delivered-to and Return-path
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: Thu, 18 Feb 2021 05:55:35 -0000

If I correctly understand the intended use of Delivered-to and
the meaning of "added at the time of delivery", I believe that
the examples in Section 4 are in error.   The example does not
show a Return-path and I'm having trouble figuring out a case in
which the Delivered-to header field could be added before the
SMTP processor made whatever it would think of a final delivery
and inserted the Return-path.

If that analysis is correct, it appears to me that the examples
can be easily corrected by adding Return-path: header fields,
presumably below the top Delivered-to: one. 

If not, some explanation may be in order in Section 5 that I'm
not finding there.

Also, I believe, after reading through this document (at -00)
several times, reading the diffs and then -01, that the meaning
of "final delivery" in its text is different from that in RFC
5321 and 5321bis.   If that is correct, it seems to me to be
worthwhile to be explicit about the difference in this document,
not to simply point to another document and assume the reader
will figure out it.

thanks,
   john