Re: [ietf-smtp] SMTP, DSNs, and enhanced replies (was: Re: SMTP server reply extensions)

Brandon Long <blong@google.com> Thu, 09 April 2020 19:35 UTC

Return-Path: <blong@google.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 EE6CD3A0CA8 for <ietf-smtp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 9 Apr 2020 12:35:44 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -17.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-17.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_MED=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, ENV_AND_HDR_SPF_MATCH=-0.5, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5, USER_IN_DEF_SPF_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=google.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 D1NARC5GvBHa for <ietf-smtp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 9 Apr 2020 12:35:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-vs1-xe31.google.com (mail-vs1-xe31.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::e31]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 263443A0CA5 for <ietf-smtp@ietf.org>; Thu, 9 Apr 2020 12:35:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-vs1-xe31.google.com with SMTP id a63so19288vsa.8 for <ietf-smtp@ietf.org>; Thu, 09 Apr 2020 12:35:42 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=eF7YnsF/EfRN5eifgit4Cj5rO1b53PPYDS1fb1scPHg=; b=ge+wHN6rziMJbl0ngPxuxXJtzoV3MfoDMHJXlvXybh+f77y7fAY5sD/4tsnwyCMxty d8hOPJTjDFYHOf75Mah3ymZg7Ev3a4YMa9bRPAuMAYXSrj6ImVyOkrJ3gD2aS9RT1C3y TLpMTebjARZwTt8ASJb+yZqMKSP2JCGiFvVOUlyx+2/+qTD8uHfpY8ENIBQHSm9q/j6o kcoXRac8ZhBXfJAn35e9fhsuN2YwhlCCwr+h8n+OU/UQUBaoGsUNQUJzsTzVcUIIaMxf Uu6sUVU3DhlcxHCDlYigW9T5im4H64SuElxRs833GHnA3J4TOkzfzZHyCMZgWYlJAEDT hjsw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=eF7YnsF/EfRN5eifgit4Cj5rO1b53PPYDS1fb1scPHg=; b=L9gvZCTD1jxHuwb4OVjqk8HFm4Vs8xcANQNT85lk+QJofMHkrF5siIC3e+1w/o7vLG Q1sbd1RjiLn79fpzV4k5WjW1h+ey427q1abmC60RbZdJ6nJCZxT1JFrN7Gb7rOC5pfNd zVVPoTr3guSbCK7joR4V7T/Nrb8N1E7p8VLSF4qWupykGg7bj04nQuunPB3ObYk5yaWX QoCRN4a1+N2Q2KoBqEphjLn6FtuTB4W/hToV7BPl2HExEnhX3vEvx1QtZ67HCM4ptLgr 0CbRIWSreyKnS8I0+3zCiZhfvWD2wMj4ynTCkkWITmr5xW8MIFghqJRaFprsOxqk+EE0 kuDg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AGi0PubmzFvOjukUiwW5gmU4H/b+k0Pg5khEnGaPq67t/BRCc9ifSfkD PsSsUQFBO/1RkjLpdDQ55JiYrlOHiV8RMJqpPrQGAmM=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APiQypL7Q0oo/VMR7P311RH98o80CEzNJbzI7Vm/RuQ+tTBq50FkJ2hvdnDGNwKOExEKUHbc1Jl1hlcxQdqTAmKYn4w=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6102:210:: with SMTP id z16mr1294602vsp.124.1586460941493; Thu, 09 Apr 2020 12:35:41 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <1BE9F552230DB5474E736740@PSB> <3a0e4939-cd2e-795d-91a2-123fabb6b8ba@dcrocker.net>
In-Reply-To: <3a0e4939-cd2e-795d-91a2-123fabb6b8ba@dcrocker.net>
From: Brandon Long <blong@google.com>
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 2020 12:35:29 -0700
Message-ID: <CABa8R6tyf5DHjL7OpwKo7tQS8a3Gt4oNcib=SvRb=OQuO_id+A@mail.gmail.com>
To: Dave Crocker <dcrocker@bbiw.net>
Cc: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>, ietf-smtp <ietf-smtp@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000de9fc005a2e0b827"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-smtp/PaaOZ7pvbCYz6_4mpCBGD_rPwxs>
Subject: Re: [ietf-smtp] SMTP, DSNs, and enhanced replies (was: Re: SMTP server reply extensions)
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, 09 Apr 2020 19:35:45 -0000

On Thu, Apr 9, 2020 at 7:19 AM Dave Crocker <dhc@dcrocker.net> wrote:

> On 4/8/2020 10:34 AM, John C Klensin wrote:
> > iven that the DSN extensions, the DSN model, and the Enhanced
> > Status Codes are widely implemented and used,
>
>
> DSNs are widely used?
>

Not positive ones, but negative ones?  I haven't done a survey of whether
bounces are typically formatted as DSNs or not, but I thought
they were more common now.

Brandon