Re: [ietf-smtp] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-crocker-email-deliveredto-00.txt

Dave Crocker <dhc@dcrocker.net> Sat, 06 February 2021 18:54 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 7CD6A3A0652 for <ietf-smtp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 6 Feb 2021 10:54:50 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.1
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.1 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, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=dcrocker.net
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 wGzLLrYu0m40 for <ietf-smtp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 6 Feb 2021 10:54:48 -0800 (PST)
Received: from olivedrab.birch.relay.mailchannels.net (olivedrab.birch.relay.mailchannels.net [23.83.209.135]) (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 3EF683A0C0D for <ietf-smtp@ietf.org>; Sat, 6 Feb 2021 10:54:25 -0800 (PST)
X-Sender-Id: hostingeremail|x-authsender|dhc@dcrocker.net
Received: from relay.mailchannels.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by relay.mailchannels.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 17C8368133C; Sat, 6 Feb 2021 18:54:25 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from nl-srv-smtpout1.hostinger.io (100-96-17-21.trex.outbound.svc.cluster.local [100.96.17.21]) (Authenticated sender: hostingeremail) by relay.mailchannels.net (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 0BFFD68117E; Sat, 6 Feb 2021 18:54:23 +0000 (UTC)
X-Sender-Id: hostingeremail|x-authsender|dhc@dcrocker.net
Received: from nl-srv-smtpout1.hostinger.io ([UNAVAILABLE]. [185.224.136.7]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384) by 100.96.17.21 (trex/6.0.2); Sat, 06 Feb 2021 18:54:24 +0000
X-MC-Relay: Neutral
X-MailChannels-SenderId: hostingeremail|x-authsender|dhc@dcrocker.net
X-MailChannels-Auth-Id: hostingeremail
X-Arch-Soft: 40272d1966ade931_1612637664769_2616628567
X-MC-Loop-Signature: 1612637664769:1460936380
X-MC-Ingress-Time: 1612637664769
Received: from [192.168.0.109] (108-226-162-63.lightspeed.sntcca.sbcglobal.net [108.226.162.63]) (Authenticated sender: dhc@dcrocker.net) by nl-srv-smtpout1.hostinger.io (smtp.hostinger.com) with ESMTPSA id D808622661D0; Sat, 6 Feb 2021 18:54:20 +0000 (UTC)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=dcrocker.net; s=hostingermail-a; t=1612637662; bh=DgMUOkyfM2qOdUQ062/gYiGPl7eq9QkKdJ4WEl3OsoA=; h=Reply-To:Subject:To:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To; b=EOUv1UzZWmwbUUgCOGgRtmEcDVclTSX9ohLV4vuZogOxfv6wqzP7nYc5B11bbQEDN WC/gObkYdaqTW5IUpaRSovte4BhiaZfiz1PUdGEQIEMffcU8TM54LaDgstOK/6C2pl 3F5MhVUjRsBMWpTprXA7EsACrOGvBhH6xTkrstB1jPv8KpwwTlSOdDbX9DVPU8bril 40ou1izziETtf+ALl9NI2b3qCWUw87i6C4o2MpaPJgJl/TVYxjjgoqrFwEHkFapRZz DcF0rZtzoPEPvuoR2pvxvMdZM6CE5wr3mu0Kx/oSjVUym3zZkjhTKHXMeChRzGHhN6 oo7lwYWP+0F6Q==
Reply-To: dcrocker@bbiw.net
To: Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it>, ietf-smtp <ietf-smtp@ietf.org>
References: <161237978029.17564.1671203014287258223@ietfa.amsl.com> <ac72f2cc-7244-23d1-3615-a8f4e5f7388c@dcrocker.net> <468945c6-04f9-12c7-c49c-51badaf04ea2@tana.it> <33341.1612561465@turing-police> <b0c79f55-b4e2-710c-b290-465c3210885c@dcrocker.net> <7b581545-47e2-b250-451e-4c76b35c9500@tana.it>
From: Dave Crocker <dhc@dcrocker.net>
Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking
Message-ID: <8dfe4c0e-862e-338c-e8f1-cd414012efa6@dcrocker.net>
Date: Sat, 06 Feb 2021 10:54:18 -0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.7.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <7b581545-47e2-b250-451e-4c76b35c9500@tana.it>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-smtp/RkWDl1wdRPLTWHt_JvoDydRpaFQ>
Subject: Re: [ietf-smtp] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-crocker-email-deliveredto-00.txt
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, 06 Feb 2021 18:54:51 -0000

On 2/6/2021 3:19 AM, Alessandro Vesely wrote:
> On Fri 05/Feb/2021 22:53:34 +0100 Dave Crocker wrote:
>> On 2/5/2021 1:44 PM, Valdis Klētnieks wrote:
>>>
>>> It's a plausible design that the agent doing final delivery accepts
>>> responsibility for delivery to multiple local mailboxes (I've often 
>>> had things
>>> that ended up delivering to root@localhost and valdis@localhost with one
>>> invocation of the local delivery agent, for example).
> 
> 
> Even then, actual delivery usually happens one mailbox at a time, in a 
> loop.

A variation on John's response:  A protocol specification is not an 
implementation specification.  Your comment is about an implementation 
choice.  The only requirement for a protocol spec is that it not prevent 
reasonable implementation.


>> The question for the specification is whether it makes clear what the 
>> specification calls for.  I think it does, but if readers aren't clear 
>> about it, it would be good to know what about it isn't clear enough.
> 
> 
> Perhaps, the case of delivery to multiple mailboxes should be 
> anticipated in Section 3.

I've added a pointer to Security Considerations.


>> A different question is how to implement the specification, so as to 
>> conform to the specification.
>>
>> For storing a separate copy for each recipient, that seems 
>> straightforward.
>>
>> For sharing a single copy of the message among multiple recipients, 
>> the answer probably is not straightforward...
> 
> 
> The case of shared IMAP folders is also straightforward.  The 
> Delivered-To: contains the mailbox of that folder if it has one, or the 
> mailbox of the recipient whose filter directed the message to that folder.

Shared folders are unrelated.  A Shared folder has a single address.

A different issue is implementations that store a single copy of a 
message sent to multiple addressees.  The text is meant merely to 
highlight a concern for divulging other addresses, not to suggest solutions.



d/

-- 
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net