Re: [ietf-smtp] DSNs

John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com> Sat, 25 April 2020 22:15 UTC

Return-Path: <john-ietf@jck.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 B26473A0B50 for <ietf-smtp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 25 Apr 2020 15:15:24 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.897
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.897 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 Xx--25quYV4Y for <ietf-smtp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 25 Apr 2020 15:15:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from bsa2.jck.com (ns.jck.com [70.88.254.51]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 84A6D3A0B4F for <ietf-smtp@ietf.org>; Sat, 25 Apr 2020 15:15:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [198.252.137.10] (helo=PSB) by bsa2.jck.com with esmtp (Exim 4.82 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <john-ietf@jck.com>) id 1jST4n-000Fnp-4s; Sat, 25 Apr 2020 18:15:09 -0400
Date: Sat, 25 Apr 2020 18:15:04 -0400
From: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>
To: Ned Freed <ned.freed@mrochek.com>, Dave Crocker <dhc@dcrocker.net>
cc: ietf-smtp@ietf.org, Viktor Dukhovni <ietf-dane@dukhovni.org>
Message-ID: <183366B964EB38083BA0AE1B@PSB>
In-Reply-To: <01RK4LP3NYJK000058@mauve.mrochek.com>
References: <20200409230011.F039B17637D0@ary.qy> <alpine.OSX.2.22.407.2004091945050.80689@ary.qy> <20200410090430.GA75736@kiel.esmtp.org> <29104A0F-B9ED-4CD7-99B3-5A042375C68B@dukhovni.org> <r7fq4k$1nm5$1@gal.iecc.com> <C1A5FAAA942E0F363CA177C0@PSB> <20200425013624.GV41308@straasha.imrryr.org> <01RK47G4QUK0000058@mauve.mrochek.com> <22e05a3b-bf47-9d83-a340-720ca9a373c4@dcrocker.net> <01RK4LP3NYJK000058@mauve.mrochek.com>
X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Win32)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 198.252.137.10
X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: john-ietf@jck.com
X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on bsa2.jck.com); SAEximRunCond expanded to false
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-smtp/YEGC0BN63JooNmI6QQcnQQueqgA>
Subject: Re: [ietf-smtp] DSNs
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, 25 Apr 2020 22:15:26 -0000


--On Saturday, April 25, 2020 14:15 -0700 Ned Freed
<ned.freed@mrochek.com> wrote:

[...]

>> Perhaps this goes to the challenge of a specification's
>> distinguishing its essential core, versus
>> desired-but-not-required enhancements.
> 
> Completely inapplicable in this case, I'm afraid. One of the
> primary goals of
> the NOTARY effort, if not the primary goal, was feature parity
> with X.400.
> And the operational model for X.400 was success receipts as
> the default.
> 
> So the feature had to be part of the core. 
> But thinkgs change. X.400 collapsed - a casualty of even more
> serious
> design errors than success DSNs. Spam became email's biggest
> problem,
> which made NOTIFY=SUCCESS less desirable. Privacy concerns
> also arose that
> weren't even on the radar at the time this work was done.
> 
>> Fail to support all of the core and it's not valid to claim
>> to support the specification.
> 
> It's not a question of support, it's a question of operational
> policy. Every
> implementation of the DSN extension I've seen has no problem
> supporting
> NOTIFY=SUCCESS. THe debate has been over whether or not it's
> legitimate to have
> an operational policy of bouncing messages that ask for it.
> 
> Of course there's also the issue of whether or not the
> extension, eith
> or without NOTIFY=SUCESS, is of sufficient value to enable.
> Some people
> see little value here, and the NOTIFY=SUCCESS situation is
> sufficiently
> bothersome to tip the scale to dropping the extension.
> 
>> The danger of a pick-and-choose free-for-all is that a claim
>> to support a specification provides little useful information.
> 
> Dave, we're talking about having an operational policy of
> restricing the use of
> exactly one feature which made sense when the standard was
> defined but has
> issues today. This is hardly a pick-and-choose free-for-all.

Agreed.   And FWIW, it seems to me that much, if not most, of
this discussion is not about whether a feature can be
implemented, has been implemented, or interoperates but about a
potentially useful (but so far non-existent, at least in the
IETF) document that says "it would be a good idea to enable
feature A if circumstances and considerations X apply and to not
do so if circumstances and conditions Y apply".  Even if either
X or Y exist all the time or are null, that sort of statement
would likely be useful.  And that is a suggestion for an
Applicability Statement, one that I hope someone who cares will
start writing, not a fundamental flaw or error in the Technical
Specifications.

Just my opinion, of course.

    john