Re: [ietf-smtp] How wrong is this EAI implementation

Keith Moore <moore@network-heretics.com> Sun, 21 June 2020 00:11 UTC

Return-Path: <moore@network-heretics.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 C58573A07C0 for <ietf-smtp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 20 Jun 2020 17:11:54 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.896
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.896 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_NONE=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=messagingengine.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 oTxhUb_wYYSZ for <ietf-smtp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 20 Jun 2020 17:11:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from out3-smtp.messagingengine.com (out3-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.27]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 32F513A07BF for <ietf-smtp@ietf.org>; Sat, 20 Jun 2020 17:11:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from compute4.internal (compute4.nyi.internal [10.202.2.44]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1514D5C00BC for <ietf-smtp@ietf.org>; Sat, 20 Jun 2020 20:11:52 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from mailfrontend2 ([10.202.2.163]) by compute4.internal (MEProxy); Sat, 20 Jun 2020 20:11:52 -0400
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=content-transfer-encoding:content-type :date:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :subject:to:x-me-proxy:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender :x-sasl-enc; s=fm3; bh=ZymLMn2aZKX+EevtkqOt9T4KU4T5QnHV6LGra20gV x4=; b=YuMB23IMI6SiBYKTp+eR7eh4DwzFWDNAPhtEStAi8dp7Tv/elLglSoF4g 0AQsk8+cXMxGi907tNaAaD3sLE7UHbDCD36p7IWDkZr15Od4akJ+TwDPUWd13S/2 ZUfawGG2Ms7wLi35J7TVifYA56+pgRkSP6XwwRFLBjWAEJwQ09hpbbk0KSrnMcrB rBx3CAvJsm+aFpt1Sa+cOpU2Jt5K6Jaow7UeRyZLnX4JFIuQKMEUb5wjuLgaWCUC q9bnx66jVEyVUfTBvcvqasBL1QYeG9zsYOJMBmbIjtQ7CQNdYeaa5rXkxvqXmR/X Z8zXeGYWGFa/dPgSuY572MfCBqK4g==
X-ME-Sender: <xms:xqXuXnD5AveWPNEzv9h9VkbPvSPzqdQDHLs-eRwidF0wVDIVKz_thw>
X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeduhedrudejledgfeefucetufdoteggodetrfdotf fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfqfgfvpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgen uceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucenucfjughrpefuvfhfhffkffgfgggjtgfgsehtje ertddtfeejnecuhfhrohhmpefmvghithhhucfoohhorhgvuceomhhoohhrvgesnhgvthif ohhrkhdqhhgvrhgvthhitghsrdgtohhmqeenucggtffrrghtthgvrhhnpeekvdeggfelue elkeeuhfffheeghffhkeeuvdduudeihfehudefffdtgfdtkeffgfenucfkphepuddtkedr vddvuddrudektddrudehnecuvehluhhsthgvrhfuihiivgeptdenucfrrghrrghmpehmrg hilhhfrhhomhepmhhoohhrvgesnhgvthifohhrkhdqhhgvrhgvthhitghsrdgtohhm
X-ME-Proxy: <xmx:xqXuXtjwlDNauKBFREu-5gbSYgahHiAowOZwkr6Q6YqCCbg8d16bIg> <xmx:xqXuXin0TBUei0agWJw7OtOMTOnAkCLVrbdfTONKQ6hrvLoO0XYkNw> <xmx:xqXuXpw30B3PeWuJdouACfACUf4DYWAdo8l_t6FOF2xZYrmw1RV9Rw> <xmx:yKXuXtSFMXIrccChrcYJB2grEp7EMNmm4MPzW6aIL8a-Kuf3sH2f0Q>
Received: from [192.168.1.85] (108-221-180-15.lightspeed.knvltn.sbcglobal.net [108.221.180.15]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 184EC30618BF for <ietf-smtp@ietf.org>; Sat, 20 Jun 2020 20:11:50 -0400 (EDT)
To: ietf-smtp@ietf.org
References: <alpine.OSX.2.22.407.2006201429080.28792@ary.qy> <2B0EB3A9E99431F86620038A@[10.1.10.18]> <alpine.OSX.2.22.407.2006201823060.29484@ary.qy> <DC26ED76E7E316714AB2B820@[10.1.10.18]>
From: Keith Moore <moore@network-heretics.com>
Message-ID: <a058a5bf-487e-63ca-70bd-4e2765d3b9b9@network-heretics.com>
Date: Sat, 20 Jun 2020 20:11:49 -0400
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <DC26ED76E7E316714AB2B820@[10.1.10.18]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Language: en-US
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-smtp/UoDk_QONb1FqMuPEXTDT_8hvlk8>
Subject: Re: [ietf-smtp] How wrong is this EAI implementation
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, 21 Jun 2020 00:11:55 -0000

On 6/20/20 7:33 PM, John C Klensin wrote:

> But, coming back to
> your original question, I think this is permitted and questions
> about "wrong" or "broken" are matters of personal opinion.

About this behavior or EAI in general?