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

Pete Resnick <resnick@episteme.net> Tue, 21 July 2020 22:06 UTC

Return-Path: <resnick@episteme.net>
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 77DD13A0AFE for <ietf-smtp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 21 Jul 2020 15:06:59 -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 R-Weh-A-40Sa for <ietf-smtp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 21 Jul 2020 15:06:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from episteme.net (episteme.net [216.169.5.102]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3C2D83A0AE9 for <ietf-smtp@ietf.org>; Tue, 21 Jul 2020 15:06:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by episteme.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9C131B56FC87; Tue, 21 Jul 2020 17:06:53 -0500 (CDT)
Received: from episteme.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (episteme.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 16wKBqNn3Cmf; Tue, 21 Jul 2020 17:06:52 -0500 (CDT)
Received: from [172.16.1.9] (episteme.net [216.169.5.102]) by episteme.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 72589B56FC7E; Tue, 21 Jul 2020 17:06:52 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Pete Resnick" <resnick@episteme.net>
To: "John C Klensin" <john-ietf@jck.com>
Cc: "Arnt Gulbrandsen" <arnt@gulbrandsen.priv.no>, ietf-smtp@ietf.org
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2020 17:06:51 -0500
X-Mailer: MailMate (1.13.1r5697)
Message-ID: <5FED9AF7-C776-47D5-BFF9-AA996BDB673C@episteme.net>
In-Reply-To: <65855E18CFC3E02EB145F68C@JcK-HP5.jck.com>
References: <81c2a19c-f19e-b495-3441-22c2a112037c@linuxmagic.com> <52D9A14B4CDD14BB4C97C355@PSB> <CAKFo7w=9_eZda47ZMUv_NE9iN1FEnGM7m3nUFy3_Wq4se+W8XQ@mail.gmail.com> <DE8B2C33275660E19FFA513C@PSB> <CAKFo7wmsm+1ck5G7Sj-NpnyXgeHd14cxGQ6K9KFeVG0_CTM1sw@mail.gmail.com> <5C6196E28FCDC4A312E73A00@PSB> <CAKFo7wk+jLGqjs6mU=Gv3G1xAg+O5OyTmt66fjW4DLzUT5kuPw@mail.gmail.com> <20200719144357.A64221D393E2@ary.qy> <ce227a65-05f8-4b3a-b464-5720cd39fc3b@gulbrandsen.priv.no> <49CA9C38-1A30-4456-869D-60D5B70C27B1@episteme.net> <65855E18CFC3E02EB145F68C@JcK-HP5.jck.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; markup=markdown
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-smtp/oAvT9X-D2bQzYoKOp2sjT8CRJTE>
Subject: Re: [ietf-smtp] Curious, with this now being associated to emailcore, should list name change?
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: Tue, 21 Jul 2020 22:06:59 -0000

On 21 Jul 2020, at 17:01, John C Klensin wrote:

> But the original inquiry was whether we need to restrict the
> length of header field names.  That almost certainly is an
> 5322bis issue even though the examples given so far don't make a
> strong case for doing it.

Sure, and in fact is already listed as an issue we'll mention at the 
BOF. (See 
https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-resnick-rfc5322bis-01.html#erratum5918.)

pr
-- 
Pete Resnick https://www.episteme.net/
All connections to the world are tenuous at best