Re: [ietf-smtp] Curious, with this now being associated to emailcore, should list name change?

[E Sam <[e-mail]>]

I think the max size of the header name does need to be addressed in RFC 5322.
Seeing how email and Usenet can sometimes be the "wild west" I have
seen really long headers and developing mail software the question of
header max limits have also come into my mind.

The other issues on the list are important too but this one is one
that I have personally dealt my hands on.

I look forward to seeing what comes out of the BOF.

Best,
 Sam


On Sat, Jul 18, 2020 at 3:15 PM John C Klensin <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> You may want to have a look at the draft agenda, now posted at
> https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/108/agenda/agenda-108-emailcore-00,
> and noting that the example topics for rfc5321bis are references
> to Appendix G of draft-klensin-rfc5321bis-03 (the agenda sort of
> says that, but, IMO, it is easy to miss).  It is vaguely
> possible that a new version of the I-D will be posted before the
> BOF meets, but it is thoroughly unlikely that Appendix
> names/numbers will change.
>
> Alexey or Seth may be able to add to that, especially if you
> have specific questions.
>
> Beyond the agenda, "emailcore" seems to be a title or framework
> for a lot of different ideas that may not have focused or
> converged yet.  The purpose of a BOF is to move that process
> along.
>
> best,
>   john
>
>
> --On Saturday, July 18, 2020 14:55 -0400 E Sam
> <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> > Hello all,
> >
> > I'm out of the loop of the plans for the (future?) emailcore
> > working group
> >
> > Any links where I can catch up and read more about this before
> > the IETF 108 meeting (if I can make it of course)
> >
> > YES i DuckDuckGoed some information about it but I am still
> > out of the loop a little bit
> >
> > Thank you all
> >
> > On Fri, Jul 17, 2020 at 6:13 PM John C Klensin
> > <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --On Friday, July 17, 2020 14:57 -0700 Michael Peddemors
> >> <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >>
> >> > Not sure what normally happens, but it might be confusing.
> >>
> >> Independent of "normal", the name and mailing address of this
> >> list is known by email developers and operators all over the
> >> Internet.  It also consolidates some prior lists specifically
> >> associated with mail headers, MIME, and non-ASCII addresses
> >> and headers (and maybe others, probably including the lists
> >> for the DRUMS and YAM WGs).   Changing its name (effectively
> >> killing the list and starting another) would be disruptive in
> >> the extreme.
> >>
> >> Perhaps "emailcore" should be given a list of its own, but I
> >> think that would not be helpful either.
> >>
> >> > "Email Core" would have a wider scope, and it might be
> >> > confusing if the list name was limited to 'smtp'.
> >>
> >> Consider it a historical artifact and, like WG names (and
> >> corresponding mailing list) that are chosen more for cuteness
> >> than actual semantic value, accept it and move forward.
> >>
> >> Please.
> >>
> >>
> >> I will leave it to the BOF Chairs and/or ADs to comment on the
> >> rest of this but my understanding is that they want to keep
> >> the scope of "emailcore" as narrow as possible, at least
> >> initially, rather than having it expand into "any email topic
> >> that would be worth addressing".
> >>
> >> Speaking only for myself, I note that the IETF has tried very
> >> hard over the years to stay out of MUA design and issues.
> >> Perhaps it is time to change that and take on at least some
> >> MUA requirements (work is badly needed, IMO, in the non-ASCII
> >> addresses and header space although I don't know if the IETF
> >> as the right expertise to do it) but it would be a rather
> >> large step.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> > Suggestion for topic for this group as well:
> >> >
> >> > Unifying all the 'autodiscover' and 'autoconfig' methods
> >> > currently in place.. email client developers have now a very
> >> > convoluted set of requirements in order to find the
> >> > 'recommended' settings for that domain or ISP etc..
> >> >
> >> > There are several independent databases out there, eg
> >> > Apple's own, the ISPDB, and even some of Microsofts' own
> >> > email clients no longer follow traditional methods of
> >> > lookups.. It is a bit of a mess, that maybe the IETF would
> >> > like to weigh in on?
> >>
> >> best,
> >>    john
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> ietf-smtp mailing list
> >> [e-mail]
> >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-smtp
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > ietf-smtp mailing list
> > [e-mail]
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-smtp
>
>