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

John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> Sat, 11 July 2020 02:32 UTC

Return-Path: <johnl@iecc.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 0ADCB3A0B90 for <ietf-smtp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 10 Jul 2020 19:32:41 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.851
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.851 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, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.249, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1536-bit key) header.d=iecc.com header.b=VNZKy+n/; dkim=pass (1536-bit key) header.d=taugh.com header.b=NyZ/D+Ao
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 MGs6AvqOEkwZ for <ietf-smtp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 10 Jul 2020 19:32:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from gal.iecc.com (gal.iecc.com [IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126:0:43:6f73:7461]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 37E623A0B89 for <ietf-smtp@ietf.org>; Fri, 10 Jul 2020 19:32:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 70509 invoked from network); 11 Jul 2020 02:32:36 -0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=iecc.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=11367.5f0924c4.k2007; bh=WfycjiqHdV1slrolm+gHcKJJuoNnRP/OK+dY2eYSfS8=; b=VNZKy+n/K01UjN8Hlmc9WFgG2jhUOqi217ua94d+sv+8P6ddNTQ1uLo0VBWs7OCXXFH4cCgJM0AXlP5vKCt4nVbkUEMs/6nYDBFIrBTzOt7dwhzLwM6B00Gyfjz4cRuQ466Zo71KSjkd4Gz84Xg1IuPkxiw8zhEIP5do2R5oTTHBfk/ABu54FtLm8fmwZMjJgOIT55cjyS/N+mXESygR7fIH1RxSV34fjQUtz14LZnZ3P71guP25ynwbSAq55mDe
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=taugh.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=11367.5f0924c4.k2007; bh=WfycjiqHdV1slrolm+gHcKJJuoNnRP/OK+dY2eYSfS8=; b=NyZ/D+AoNtbkU/M6/w18mQMc9AH4xa1wIpq7tlGI3tQgr/6FlcYsoFTX8sgWAR0xwhwmF3858ryLEKzpmd/hKljWPpK4Lkb3b6zlRv26xdSDm3ySwtNox28EyLW9GtsZR5cBsbxUHh3IoFaQY+p5JvWWBHBaXaJpWwd/oq9shic7pP5pIYOz+emq41kw932ZNKYu6gULEA9eWWCh3N/K1nM143vfdek6tJU7mNLBubO7nHAm6RokqBrgD42TPZha
Received: from ary.qy ([IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126::78:696d:6170]) by imap.iecc.com ([IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126::78:696d:6170]) with ESMTP via TCP6; 11 Jul 2020 02:32:36 -0000
Received: by ary.qy (Postfix, from userid 501) id 2BB421C832A5; Fri, 10 Jul 2020 22:32:45 -0400 (EDT)
Date: 10 Jul 2020 22:32:45 -0400
Message-Id: <20200711023245.2BB421C832A5@ary.qy>
From: "John Levine" <johnl@taugh.com>
To: ietf-smtp@ietf.org
Cc: winshell64@gmail.com
In-Reply-To: <CAKFo7wmJi--ic_rct91d8wBUTq74qYfzMdOz7r+NqwX+f8ZwsQ@mail.gmail.com>
Organization: Taughannock Networks
X-Headerized: yes
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-transfer-encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-smtp/GNwpfOMwEttZYm9Ddl34HcFDUCQ>
Subject: Re: [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: Sat, 11 Jul 2020 02:32:41 -0000

In article <CAKFo7wmJi--ic_rct91d8wBUTq74qYfzMdOz7r+NqwX+f8ZwsQ@mail.gmail.com> you write:
>I see, well use of the code/codes wouldn't be required so multihop
>relays could refuse to use it. The purpose behind it is mainly people
>that want to be able to change their email addresses. 

I'm pretty sure we all understand what you're proposing. This is not a
new idea -- it is the same thing the 551 code did in RFC 788 in 1981.

Given that 551 has been a failure for four decades, and that long term
forwarding is widely used to address the same problem, you need to
explain why this proposal is different, and who you think is likely to
implement it.

Keep in mind the point about multihop relays. For anyone who uses a
mail program like Outlook or Thunderbird, this won't work, and that's
a lot of people. We try to define standards in ways that work for
everyone.

It would also be a good idea to show that you're familiar with other
attempts to solve this problem and why they have or (mostly) haven't
worked. You could start with the three patents I cited.

R's,
John