[ietf-smtp] Items for rfc5321bis
Dave Crocker <dhc@dcrocker.net> Sun, 29 December 2019 23:41 UTC
Return-Path: <dhc@dcrocker.net>
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 893881200D5 for <ietf-smtp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 29 Dec 2019 15:41:16 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.601
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.601 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-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 APhG7uLagM6o for <ietf-smtp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 29 Dec 2019 15:41:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: from simon.songbird.com (simon.songbird.com [72.52.113.5]) (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 981B11200CD for <ietf-smtp@ietf.org>; Sun, 29 Dec 2019 15:41:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.1.85] (108-226-162-63.lightspeed.sntcca.sbcglobal.net [108.226.162.63]) (authenticated bits=0) by simon.songbird.com (8.14.4/8.14.4/Debian-4.1ubuntu1.1) with ESMTP id xBTNg5Ak011808 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT) for <ietf-smtp@ietf.org>; Sun, 29 Dec 2019 15:42:06 -0800
From: Dave Crocker <dhc@dcrocker.net>
Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking
To: SMTP Discuss <ietf-smtp@ietf.org>
Reply-To: dcrocker@bbiw.net
Message-ID: <2e83664c-0086-64ec-3435-2be4c8719bdf@dcrocker.net>
Date: Sun, 29 Dec 2019 15:41:03 -0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.9.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-smtp/K1MpIrubUzq6-90Ikdl4yuh7n3o>
Subject: [ietf-smtp] Items for rfc5321bis
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: Sun, 29 Dec 2019 23:41:16 -0000
To get these into the discussion mix: 1. RFC 5598 // Add a citation to this, which is am IETF-stream consensus description of email architecture and terminology. Remove language that conflicts with that document. 2. RFC 6409 // Add a citation and text that clarifies SMTP is for MTA interactions and not those involving MUAs. 3. Section 3.7 Mail Gatewaying // Delete This topic is not relevant to SMTP. It is relevant for processes at a higher level in the architecture and belongs in a separate discussion. The normative language here is actually counter-productive. Moving this text to a separate discussion will permit it to be reviewed and modified to represent modern operational realities. 4. Section 3.9. Mailing Lists and Aliases // Delete Basically, this section is archaic. In reality, neither of these topics pertains to the mechanism for moving email from an Internet originating MTA to an Internet delivering MTA, which is what SMTP does. These are issues at a higher level in email architecture. The section's presence in the protocol doc is counter-productive. 5. Section 4.1.1.6 Verify (vrfy) // Consider deleting My impression is that abuse behavior has rendered this command dangerous in SMTP. 6. Section 4.1.1.7 Expand (EXPN) // Delete My impression is that it has been decades since this command was reasonable for use on the Internet in SMTP. 7. Section F.1 TURN // Delete normative clause. The word 'deprecate' has a definitive semantic. The clause at the end saying 'should not' conflicts with that semantic. Whether this section should cite RFC 1985 and RFC 2645 is a separate question. 8. Review every normative assertion, for reasonableness in the face of modern operational challenges. I suspect some should be changed. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net
- [ietf-smtp] Items for rfc5321bis Dave Crocker