IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [ietf-smtp] Fwd: I-D Action: draft-melnikov-smtp-metadata-00.txt

Brandon Long <blong@google.com> Mon, 23 March 2015 20:18 UTC

Return-Path: <blong@google.com>
X-Original-To: ietf-smtp@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf-smtp@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 770891ACEF6 for <ietf-smtp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 23 Mar 2015 13:18:01 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.388
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.388 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=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 tz4Ym0u9XATk for <ietf-smtp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 23 Mar 2015 13:18:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ie0-x22a.google.com (mail-ie0-x22a.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c03::22a]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 30C171A19E3 for <ietf-smtp@ietf.org>; Mon, 23 Mar 2015 13:18:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by iedm5 with SMTP id m5so45199052ied.3 for <ietf-smtp@ietf.org>; Mon, 23 Mar 2015 13:17:59 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=GU4YjXWIf0oAm6DkJUrAuEyOOY6ePvyn5Yg9L7KHJu4=; b=iRnMWIFzIOP4rCjSxAgd65BAlXpgVzFzD7n9YMTKG17shG67V0f1C+V5Zf1+Gnqt8f kD4NnLLQtWy3DGRRdsV5YV1lPKsek0mAUwaokkT5Ya50r8NfNkVP+wZhVrPOooIpdbK9 0JBfYExquxcAPcmkMlis5/Jp87EBjXDUaXmainGmbUDcHbhL+0Kptr8A1zy3vAIpdM2F 4GlpjZ6zJb+xQx7JHn52lbIzU/6TgTdccDqKldap0ACV75I+g+BeRmZ5pQDM70umyChT f1en0245iID711MUdIfDAm/yCwNr/cw1XvfPYiYeMIhuz18NwiRsfdzkfk0iCiPQ9xfb fgzw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=GU4YjXWIf0oAm6DkJUrAuEyOOY6ePvyn5Yg9L7KHJu4=; b=JAwq164be/FVmml/STkDplxZJmZFDz/fmb+FEUqC9fV50YPLrTN6ejbM+Y2PU0gi4z WX/8y4PMJ4gCQxk1weLYZYJMNXEg1CZmZQKxNbltiVdt+L6xuC3ni2vmNJGIWyYdOXml rf+P12vzJHqoEok1Y8pwNk1ofnXTvogFI8A3xWnrDzrSC+hQQAGgMOzDhcuME8yVYDKt iA1B0Cx75WpxpyFskUQn5zafPauqP5Re26UDindBYKZgHfKUFWC1iXS3X/daBeOAxAYq LoYz/A2ueLQEF0utskvhiafNtZ6jGOnhRv2Jq/08/1bBDslLmVy4cgcByJTCKL6Xc2rb qScQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkhTUEZkLZqLt3xAf6xSJZbIdNDI4a9zzf5UehgYYHqENSRnkH5v1qd63IZXNQAwNNaHI5/
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.50.118.97 with SMTP id kl1mr10114920igb.23.1427141879516; Mon, 23 Mar 2015 13:17:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.64.86.7 with HTTP; Mon, 23 Mar 2015 13:17:59 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <01PJX8XAIWS0000090@mauve.mrochek.com>
References: <20150307202540.13358.58739.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <550EE444.4040507@isode.com> <4175cf7b-c14e-455d-bd6b-0903d9de6194@gulbrandsen.priv.no> <550F2851.2010409@isode.com> <259d7567-2b13-46df-bb03-54f74fc9e1b4@gulbrandsen.priv.no> <01PJX8XAIWS0000090@mauve.mrochek.com>
Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2015 13:17:59 -0700
Message-ID: <CABa8R6sQ1MCpYLW7NzwJTiVdWFgFOBEEx7GxJxJL71p+FBfsgg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Brandon Long <blong@google.com>
To: Ned Freed <ned.freed@mrochek.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="089e013a1118c60b2e0511fa5cc5"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-smtp/ZwrvNSVNHMwGUBs9kBcqYNninP0>
Cc: Arnt Gulbrandsen <arnt@gulbrandsen.priv.no>, ietf-smtp <ietf-smtp@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [ietf-smtp] Fwd: I-D Action: draft-melnikov-smtp-metadata-00.txt
X-BeenThere: ietf-smtp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Mon, 23 Mar 2015 20:18:01 -0000

The problem with BINARYMIME is that unless everyone supports it, someone
may have to transform the message... and that will break DKIM signatures
and make life annoying.  Hence my colleagues question about a mime aware
dkim canonicalization format as a pre-req for binarymime.

Brandon

On Sun, Mar 22, 2015 at 9:54 PM, Ned Freed <ned.freed@mrochek.com> wrote:

> Alexey Melnikov writes:
>> > I think support for RFC 3030 CHUNKING extension is much more
>> > common these days, but I need to double check major SMTP server
>> > implementations.
>>
>
>  Neither Exim nor Postfix. What else counts as major or common nowadays?
>> Gmail perhaps? It does chunking, but not binarymine.
>>
>
> FWIW, we support client/server chunking but our binarymime support is
> server
> only. (The logic here is that it's main use is for mobile client
> submission.)
>
> It support calls are any indication there are several widely used chunking
> implementations out there. (With some bugs.) Binarymime, not so much.
>
>                                 Ned
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> ietf-smtp mailing list
> ietf-smtp@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-smtp
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email