IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [ietf-smtp] Possible contribution to moving forward with RFC5321bis SMTP

S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com> Sat, 28 December 2019 19:04 UTC

Return-Path: <sm@elandsys.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 7CEBE120105 for <ietf-smtp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 28 Dec 2019 11:04:27 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.698
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.698 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_INVALID=0.1, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=fail (1024-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.d=elandsys.com
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 cTsHDIQ7W-fp for <ietf-smtp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 28 Dec 2019 11:04:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx.elandsys.com (mx.elandsys.com [162.213.2.210]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CB6A512007A for <ietf-smtp@ietf.org>; Sat, 28 Dec 2019 11:04:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: from DESKTOP-K6V9C2L.elandsys.com ([102.116.57.14]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.15.2/8.14.5) with ESMTPSA id xBSJ49Kp005519 (version=TLSv1 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Sat, 28 Dec 2019 11:04:20 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=elandsys.com; s=mail; t=1577559862; x=1577646262; i=@elandsys.com; bh=0x51gADyQU/3SdLd6Z9y3aTk1oo4hsHRGdvOCAhL37o=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:In-Reply-To:References; b=uYgDkkn42XbXTa5ureFEAnI23UACcgaC3AjHPa07rzFnO+QG5D1qzYrk2dJoHBsd1 joDTaM1xB48L5QtpDNNIBsYbCrn5DAJ0dIayoDNSFh2EbCbiPlOG/HbwBN/whencSV mSQDK8lDx/wUt2LypzV6I4o5XNTF9YFkgB0uruRA=
Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20191228102816.0eb6bf10@elandnews.com>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6
Date: Sat, 28 Dec 2019 11:03:56 -0800
To: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>, ietf-smtp@ietf.org
From: S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com>
In-Reply-To: <EFFC416C6D5D0DE2B2588D70@PSB>
References: <FCDE38AEA7DDB9BB0FB206F9@PSB> <0605ee67-86eb-3e27-26b0-7a1c16a37bee@tana.it> <553FE6792AFBD83DA7DFE7F0@PSB> <2BB1805D-05F3-47B6-9897-45C4AE05EB08@dukhovni.org> <C620BDD6C0C346E6E9651168@PSB> <ABD7357F-D6B4-4E0A-807A-90DCBD6DB5CB@dukhovni.org> <EFFC416C6D5D0DE2B2588D70@PSB>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-smtp/JzN0nTgf2xcgkv20RQExuDLovz8>
Subject: Re: [ietf-smtp] Possible contribution to moving forward with RFC5321bis SMTP
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, 28 Dec 2019 19:04:28 -0000

Hi John,
At 03:25 PM 27-12-2019, John C Klensin wrote:
>Probably worth reviewing RFC 1846 to see what it says about
>these issues.  I have not done that yet and it isn't at the top
>of my queue.

RFC 1846 sets a requirement with two possible paths:

   1. Retry another (MX) host.

   2. Give up and return a NDR.

Was there some past discussion to use 421 for (1) instead of a 521?

RFC 1846 proposed a minimal smtp server.  The minimal implementation 
defined in RFC 5321 would not be compliant [1] with RFC 1846 and RFC 
7504 if that implementation does not support the postmaster address.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy

1. Section 4.5.1 of RFC 5321 states that the postmaster address is 
strictly not necessary if the server always returns a 554.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email