Miscellaneous comments on draft-crocker-email-arch-04.txt
Bruce Lilly <blilly@erols.com> Tue, 05 April 2005 12:29 UTC
Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id j35CTNKe061280; Tue, 5 Apr 2005 05:29:23 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-ietf-smtp@mail.imc.org)
Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id j35CTNHn061279; Tue, 5 Apr 2005 05:29:23 -0700 (PDT)
X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-smtp@mail.imc.org using -f
Received: from ns4.townisp.com (ns4a.townisp.com [216.195.0.138]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id j35CTN7I061269 for <ietf-smtp@imc.org>; Tue, 5 Apr 2005 05:29:23 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from blilly@erols.com)
Received: from mail.blilly.com (dhcp-0-8-a1-c-fa-f7.cpe.townisp.com [216.49.158.220]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "marty.blilly.com", Issuer "Bruce Lilly" (not verified)) by ns4.townisp.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 783FE29910; Tue, 5 Apr 2005 08:29:22 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from marty.blilly.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.blilly.com with ESMTP id j35CTLaj021920(8.13.1/8.13.1/mail.blilly.com sendmail.mc.mail 1.23 2005/03/23 20:35:49) (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK) ; Tue, 5 Apr 2005 08:29:21 -0400
Received: from marty.blilly.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (authenticated (0 bits)) by marty.blilly.com with ESMTP id j35CTKx4021916(8.13.1/8.13.1/blilly.com submit.mc 1.2 2005/03/17 23:41:52) (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5 bits=128 verify=NO) ; Tue, 5 Apr 2005 08:29:20 -0400
From: Bruce Lilly <blilly@erols.com>
Reply-To: ietf-smtp@imc.org
Organization: Bruce Lilly
To: ietf-smtp@imc.org, Dave Crocker <dcrocker@bbiw.net>
Subject: Miscellaneous comments on draft-crocker-email-arch-04.txt
Date: Tue, 05 Apr 2005 08:29:17 -0400
User-Agent: KMail/1.8
References: <200532982310.610847@BBPRIME>
In-Reply-To: <200532982310.610847@BBPRIME>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Message-Id: <200504050829.18072.blilly@erols.com>
Sender: owner-ietf-smtp@mail.imc.org
Precedence: bulk
List-Archive: <http://www.imc.org/ietf-smtp/mail-archive/>
List-ID: <ietf-smtp.imc.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-smtp-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe>
The Abstract and Introduction refer to "the first standardized architecture for email". That would be FTP (MAIL and MLFL commands). I believe that the quoted phrase above should be replaced by "RFC 821". The introduction also states "Core aspects of the service, such as address and message style, have remained remarkably constant." In fact there have been significant changes, not all beneficial. Initially messages were completely unstructured; RFC 561 added structure by separating message content into header and body. Both header and body were end-to-end (see RFC 1958) user-to-user communication until RFC 788 started insertion of transport markings into the message content. Subsequent extensions (e.g. RFC 2919) have added more "bumper stickers". It is incorrect to imply that these changes haven't happened; at minimum these changes should be acknowledged, ideally mention would be made of the fact that mixing transport markings with end-to-end content has caused (and continues to cause) problems (e.g. it hampers straightforward digital signing of content, it has led to improper modification of some Originator fields (e.g. Reply-To) by some implementations, has led to incorrect use of mailboxes in the From field for non-delivery (esp. "vacation"-like) notifications). Section 1.3 and subsequent sections use the term "bounce", which implies non-delivery whereas the term is used to cover cases that include positive delivery notifications as well as informational notices about delayed transmission. The latter in particular are often misinterpreted as non-delivery notifications, in spite of the fact that many such delay notices contain explicit text IN SCREAMING ALL CAPS that there is no need to resend. The architecture document should not contribute to the confusion by conflating the three different types of notifications as "bounces". Figure 2 implies that a recipient can only respond to an originator if the message passed through a mediator. Section 2.2.3 states "A Relay may add information to the envelope, such as with trace information. However it does not modify existing envelope information or the message content semantics". Routes in paths (forward and reverse) generally are modified in transit. Routes in paths are now somewhat uncommon, but are not obsolete and should not be ignored in a description of the mail system architecture. Section 2.3, describing ISPs, states "It is not their job to perform email functions, but to provide an environment in which those functions can be performed". Reality is that many (most?) ISPs provide an environment in which mail transport functions cannot be performed without using ISP-supplied mail services (terms of service that prevent users from running SMTP servers or blocking outbound port 25, etc.). Section 4.6 refers to "relationship among two MSs". The relationship is between an MS and an rMUA (simply "MUA" in the draft as written). Synchronization between "local" and "remote" MSs occurs when they are connected to a common rMUA. Section 5.5 should explicitly caution against mangling of Originator fields (e.g. see draft-malamud-subject-line-04.txt). References may be amended by errata ( http://www.rfc-editor.org/cgi-bin/errata.pl ); that certainly applies to RFC 2821 and should be mentioned prominently (many developers are apparently unaware of RFC errata). There are also errors in some referenced RFCs (ibid.) which aren't corrected by errata, but that's another matter.
- Fw: pseudo LAST CALL - draft-crocker-email-arch-0… Hector Santos
- "addressing" comments on draft-crocker-email-arch… Bruce Lilly
- Re: Extraneous CRs in transfer of draft-crocker-e… Hector Santos
- Re: Extraneous CRs in transfer of draft-crocker-e… Keith Moore
- Re: Extraneous CRs in transfer of draft-crocker-e… ned+ietf-smtp
- Re: Extraneous CRs in transfer of draft-crocker-e… Mark E. Mallett
- Re: Extraneous CRs in transfer of draft-crocker-e… Bruce Lilly
- Re: Extraneous CRs in transfer of draft-crocker-e… Hector Santos
- Re: Extraneous CRs in transfer of draft-crocker-e… Dave Crocker
- Re: Extraneous CRs in transfer of draft-crocker-e… Bruce Lilly
- Re: Extraneous CRs in transfer of draft-crocker-e… Dave Crocker
- Re: Extraneous CRs in transfer of draft-crocker-e… Claus Assmann
- Re: Extraneous CRs in transfer of draft-crocker-e… Dave Crocker
- Re: Extraneous CRs in transfer of draft-crocker-e… Claus Assmann
- Re: pseudo LAST CALL - draft-crocker-email-arch-0… Dave Crocker
- Re: Extraneous CRs in transfer of draft-crocker-e… Dave Crocker
- Extraneous CRs in transfer of draft-crocker-email… Bruce Lilly
- Re: pseudo LAST CALL - draft-crocker-email-arch-0… Arnt Gulbrandsen
- Re: pseudo LAST CALL - draft-crocker-email-arch-0… Frank Ellermann
- Re: pseudo LAST CALL - draft-crocker-email-arch-0… Frank Ellermann
- Re: Editorial/typographical/grammatical/punctuati… Bruce Lilly
- Re: pseudo LAST CALL - draft-crocker-email-arch-0… Dave Crocker
- Re: Editorial/typographical/grammatical/punctuati… Dave Crocker
- Re: Editorial/typographical/grammatical/punctuati… Bruce Lilly
- Re: pseudo LAST CALL - draft-crocker-email-arch-0… Mark E. Mallett
- Re: Editorial/typographical/grammatical/punctuati… Dave Crocker
- Editorial/typographical/grammatical/punctuation/u… Bruce Lilly
- Re: pseudo LAST CALL - draft-crocker-email-arch-0… Bruce Lilly
- Re: pseudo LAST CALL - draft-crocker-email-arch-0… Dave Crocker
- Re: pseudo LAST CALL - draft-crocker-email-arch-0… Hector Santos
- Re: Re: pseudo LAST CALL - draft-crocker-email-ar… Hector Santos
- Re: pseudo LAST CALL - draft-crocker-email-arch-0… Dave Crocker
- Re: pseudo LAST CALL - draft-crocker-email-arch-0… Bruce Lilly
- Re: Re: pseudo LAST CALL - draft-crocker-email-ar… willemien
- Re: Re: pseudo LAST CALL - draft-crocker-email-ar… willemien
- Re: Re: pseudo LAST CALL - draft-crocker-email-ar… willemien
- Re: pseudo LAST CALL - draft-crocker-email-arch-0… Hector Santos
- Re: pseudo LAST CALL - draft-crocker-email-arch-0… Hector Santos
- Re: pseudo LAST CALL - draft-crocker-email-arch-0… willemien
- Re: pseudo LAST CALL - draft-crocker-email-arch-0… Hector Santos
- Re: pseudo LAST CALL - draft-crocker-email-arch-0… Dave Crocker
- pseudo LAST CALL - draft-crocker-email-arch-04.txt Dave Crocker
- Re: Miscellaneous comments on draft-crocker-email… Dave Crocker
- Re: reassembly Bruce Lilly
- reassembly Dave Crocker
- Re: "User" confusion and incomplete description o… Bruce Lilly
- Re: "addressing" comments on draft-crocker-email-… Bruce Lilly
- Re: Miscellaneous comments on draft-crocker-email… Frank Ellermann
- Re: "User" confusion and incomplete description o… Frank Ellermann
- Re: "addressing" comments on draft-crocker-email-… Frank Ellermann
- Re: message-identifiers vs. "new message" in draf… Bruce Lilly
- Re: Miscellaneous comments on draft-crocker-email… Bruce Lilly
- Re: "User" confusion and incomplete description o… Bruce Lilly
- Re: message-identifiers vs. "new message" in draf… Bruce Lilly
- Re: Miscellaneous comments on draft-crocker-email… Tony Finch
- Re: "User" confusion and incomplete description o… Tony Finch
- Re: message-identifiers vs. "new message" in draf… Tony Finch
- Re: Miscellaneous comments on draft-crocker-email… Keith Moore
- Re: "User" confusion and incomplete description o… Bruce Lilly
- Re: Miscellaneous comments on draft-crocker-email… Bruce Lilly
- Re: message-identifiers vs. "new message" in draf… Carl S. Gutekunst
- Re: message-identifiers vs. "new message" in draf… Bruce Lilly
- Re: "User" confusion and incomplete description o… Keith Moore
- Re: Miscellaneous comments on draft-crocker-email… Tony Finch
- Re: "User" confusion and incomplete description o… Tony Finch
- Re: message-identifiers vs. "new message" in draf… Tony Finch
- Re: Miscellaneous comments on draft-crocker-email… Bruce Lilly
- Re: Miscellaneous comments on draft-crocker-email… Dave Crocker
- Re: Miscellaneous comments on draft-crocker-email… Bruce Lilly
- Miscellaneous comments on draft-crocker-email-arc… Bruce Lilly
- "User" confusion and incomplete description of ar… Bruce Lilly
- Re: pseudo LAST CALL - draft-crocker-email-arch-0… Dave Crocker
- Re: pseudo LAST CALL - draft-crocker-email-arch-0… Keith Moore
- Re: pseudo LAST CALL - draft-crocker-email-arch-0… Carl S. Gutekunst
- Re: pseudo LAST CALL - draft-crocker-email-arch-0… Dave Crocker
- Re: pseudo LAST CALL - draft-crocker-email-arch-0… Bruce Lilly
- Re: message-identifiers vs. "new message" in draf… Bruce Lilly
- message-identifiers vs. "new message" in draft-cr… Bruce Lilly
- Re: message-identifiers vs. "new message" in draf… Tony Finch
- Re: message-identifiers vs. "new message" in draf… Frank Ellermann
- Re: message-identifiers vs. "new message" in draf… Dave Crocker