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

John R Levine <johnl@taugh.com> Sat, 20 June 2020 22:23 UTC

Return-Path: <johnl@taugh.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 4E5FF3A09C6 for <ietf-smtp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 20 Jun 2020 15:23:31 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.1
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.1 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1536-bit key) header.d=iecc.com header.b=pCJ4Q2+t; dkim=pass (1536-bit key) header.d=taugh.com header.b=h61kzCTp
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 F9wbmWLrOPuF for <ietf-smtp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 20 Jun 2020 15:23:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from gal.iecc.com (gal.iecc.com [IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126:0:43:6f73:7461]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AD1B73A09C5 for <ietf-smtp@ietf.org>; Sat, 20 Jun 2020 15:23:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 79792 invoked from network); 20 Jun 2020 22:23:26 -0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=iecc.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:content-type:user-agent; s=137ae.5eee8c5e.k2006; i=johnl-iecc.com@submit.iecc.com; bh=0yP00arz1njDPnE1DVWqq5F0uyJymWKEZuYpDkLoG+0=; b=pCJ4Q2+tPPbENvWtufU0L8rYOgLMeqK+MH7SirQimIKhFBmLeHHV0WwIjt0SIH7Uhyn5gkFV8mt8QNR71Sa6+mEopUhNI8yNrFtSOaGltnB2TqgorIBG7WWjhcd5aUOJIaOCLFicwExx8LoV21AWkedSUimqdoO+eSlZbQ3IFMlPXlfB+3Ii6ctvCaMt7DFZR+q9ReEzaTYBPw1YXGSrcNAft1HeoMBcWWK2009hT0Xb/jhuE3Io/0F6BBxjpPRj
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=taugh.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:content-type:user-agent; s=137ae.5eee8c5e.k2006; olt=johnl-iecc.com@submit.iecc.com; bh=0yP00arz1njDPnE1DVWqq5F0uyJymWKEZuYpDkLoG+0=; b=h61kzCTp4reg8jv+P2JerUXCPwGHHNk9WAmkBddiVzwCNb9Wj/wN1SfiXNl1+JJqpSEQYC+31E5xIVRlcXJFBwVSO5XOycFiVk/iX+QoupP/mviJA76gbgljVGHgvGwyo5XLPyCn0rrRXkipaofrsmon3DTyr32J7WI8TN1ITq0zjarEj34okBxIWXBPrwZ4I7E/pu4LW8NOzhBWmJELWFyhAyQnhiTAOStwkbqENZRJCARDPCwjkAMLG8vNnd9s
Received: from localhost ([IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126::78:696d:6170]) by imap.iecc.com ([IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126::78:696d:6170]) with ESMTPSA (TLS1.3 ECDHE-RSA AES-256-GCM AEAD, johnl@iecc.com) via TCP6; 20 Jun 2020 22:23:26 -0000
Date: 20 Jun 2020 18:23:26 -0400
Message-ID: <alpine.OSX.2.22.407.2006201823060.29484@ary.qy>
From: "John R Levine" <johnl@taugh.com>
To: "John C Klensin" <john-ietf@jck.com>
Cc: ietf-smtp@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <2B0EB3A9E99431F86620038A@[10.1.10.18]>
References: <alpine.OSX.2.22.407.2006201429080.28792@ary.qy> <2B0EB3A9E99431F86620038A@[10.1.10.18]>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.22 (OSX 407 2020-02-09)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-smtp/f-9XcGq4yHVHW6za3n3_dNOqCmc>
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: Sat, 20 Jun 2020 22:23:31 -0000

> I haven't thought it through but, somehow, converting domains in
> backward-pointing addresses (what do they do to/with
> "Reply-to:"?) seems more, rather than less, offensive than
> forward-pointing ones.

They turn Reply-To into a-labels too.  Bah.

Regards,
John Levine, johnl@taugh.com, Taughannock Networks, Trumansburg NY
Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly