Re: [ietf-smtp] How is EAI mail implemented ?

Sam Varshavchik <mrsam@courier-mta.com> Wed, 16 June 2021 01:49 UTC

Return-Path: <mrsam@courier-mta.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 B7D473A4600 for <ietf-smtp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 15 Jun 2021 18:49:35 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 1.436
X-Spam-Level: *
X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.436 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_PBL=3.335, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no 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 UbTBKVo4Fkdt for <ietf-smtp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 15 Jun 2021 18:49:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailx.courier-mta.com (mailx.courier-mta.com [68.166.206.83]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DF8913A45FF for <ietf-smtp@ietf.org>; Tue, 15 Jun 2021 18:49:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from monster.email-scan.com (monster.email-scan.com [::ffff:192.168.0.2]) (TLS: TLSv1.3,256bits,TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) by www.courier-mta.com with UTF8SMTPS id 0000000000221063.0000000060C958A6.00006A45; Tue, 15 Jun 2021 21:49:26 -0400
Received: from monster.email-scan.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (IDENT: uid 1004) by monster.email-scan.com with UTF8SMTP id 00000000000204CE.0000000060C958A6.0000FB2E; Tue, 15 Jun 2021 21:49:26 -0400
References: <20210615235127.769B31171A6E@ary.qy>
Message-ID: <cone.1623808165.842448.61687.1004@monster.email-scan.com>
X-Mailer: http://www.courier-mta.org/cone/
From: Sam Varshavchik <mrsam@courier-mta.com>
To: ietf-smtp@ietf.org
Date: Tue, 15 Jun 2021 21:49:25 -0400
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=_monster.email-scan.com-61687-1623808165-0003"; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-smtp/I90HLqOIvbWXM0Lp-PhcJ1uBKZo>
Subject: Re: [ietf-smtp] =?utf-8?q?How_is_EAI_mail_implemented_=3F?=
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: Wed, 16 Jun 2021 01:49:36 -0000

John Levine writes:

> It appears that Sam Varshavchik  <mrsam@courier-mta.com> said:
> >A few months ago someone @icann.org contacted me regarding "UASG030 EAI
> >Testing Results for Courier". After swapping a few messages, the upshot was
> >that, apparently, the testing apparatus that was employed in that endeavor
> >expected SMTPUTF8 senders specify the UTF8 flag on anything that's sent to a
> >receiver that advertises SMTPUTF8, even if it's pure ASCII.
>
> The person running the tests these days is me, and that's the exact
> opposite of what the tests are looking for, that it *doesn't* send the
> UTF8 flag on ASCII mail. I didn't run the tests on Courier, but I
> think the people who did checked correctly.

It's possible that I interpreted the results incorrectly. It was mostly a  
somewhat cryptic data dump, whose contents was not immediately obvious. It's  
also possible I'm misremembering the whole thing, since I don't see the code  
change that I thought was made.

> By the way, last time I checked, when Courier adds a Received line it says
> UTF8ESMTP rather than UTF8SMTP.  Did you ever get around to fixing that?  It
> looks like a one or two line fix.  Exim had the same bug.

Yup, I got around to it.