IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [ietf-smtp] CHUNKING and PIPELINING

Ned Freed <ned.freed@mrochek.com> Mon, 08 March 2021 00:30 UTC

Return-Path: <ned.freed@mrochek.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 2CCF53A1FFA for <ietf-smtp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 7 Mar 2021 16:30:45 -0800 (PST)
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 (1024-bit key) header.d=mrochek.com
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 XmNl1aSr9h4L for <ietf-smtp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 7 Mar 2021 16:30:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mauve.mrochek.com (mauve.mrochek.com [98.153.82.211]) (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 83BE23A1FD5 for <ietf-smtp@ietf.org>; Sun, 7 Mar 2021 16:30:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: from dkim-sign.mauve.mrochek.com by mauve.mrochek.com (PMDF V6.1-1 #35243) id <01RWE5PURWOG00G28P@mauve.mrochek.com> for ietf-smtp@ietf.org; Sun, 7 Mar 2021 16:25:36 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=mrochek.com; s=201712; t=1615163136; bh=ti8J2kAEnhULNpdrGujcn8hFH3gJ/uwQTtT3vXA/tlQ=; h=Cc:Date:From:Subject:In-reply-to:References:To:From; b=aIpxku3Vos7bfvR2mCZrqD81DW+tYW2LccpuxAMn2ubgB3Hr+UIvoi03GgrS6KTC8 01dfBOB4ttpigcqlC/s9nN+2uv889RRIwTxQz7GogUyPvdXrNl4i3D33KqCxS+d4+a IKXQYz1Xir3MyT6Rmy0P3EtolmTwF+m8WDERBtzc=
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET="us-ascii"; Format="flowed"
Received: from mauve.mrochek.com by mauve.mrochek.com (PMDF V6.1-1 #35243) id <01RWDMX50OQ8005PTU@mauve.mrochek.com>; Sun, 7 Mar 2021 16:25:34 -0800 (PST)
Cc: ietf-smtp@ietf.org
Message-id: <01RWE5PTDIP0005PTU@mauve.mrochek.com>
Date: Sun, 07 Mar 2021 16:19:34 -0800
From: Ned Freed <ned.freed@mrochek.com>
In-reply-to: "Your message dated Sun, 07 Mar 2021 21:37:41 +0000" <37142192-094c-e727-fbe0-e89b641e9755@wizmail.org>
References: <b1202e49-26b2-35d8-0db7-bb94acd0d52f@wizmail.org> <01RWCSPP4820005PTU@mauve.mrochek.com> <1AFA5DBF-325F-4943-BBE3-45311CC485CA@dukhovni.org> <37142192-094c-e727-fbe0-e89b641e9755@wizmail.org>
To: Jeremy Harris <jgh@wizmail.org>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-smtp/pp2U52rFmuwjOaHp4jFJPIxOo6E>
Subject: Re: [ietf-smtp] CHUNKING and PIPELINING
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: Mon, 08 Mar 2021 00:30:45 -0000

> On 07/03/2021 20:14, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
> > What Jeremy did not mention is that he's seeing interoperability
> > issues (reportedly with Google and IIRC Yahoo) when pipelining
> > "BDAT nnnn LAST<CRLF>QUIT<CRLF>".

> Specifically, both of the two large providers I've noted giving
> problems consistently drop the connection without giving a response
> for the BDAT LAST.o

> Google is fine with a QUIT pipelined after data-ending-in-dot
> (tranditional non-CHUNKING); I've not had a chance to evaluate
> yahoodns.net yet.  Both are fine with non-pipelined QUIT and
> BDAT (LAST).

If so, that's deeply broken, never mind the legality of following a BDAT LAST
with a QUIT. Nothing in the pipeling specification says it is OK for a
later command to in effect be evaluated out of order.

There's even text in RFC 5321 section 4.1.1.10 saying that you can't close the
connection prematurely.

				Ned

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email