Re: [ietf-smtp] DSNs

John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> Sun, 19 April 2020 02:54 UTC

Return-Path: <johnl@iecc.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 F13FD3A16EF for <ietf-smtp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 18 Apr 2020 19:54:35 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.05
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.05 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.25, 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=FlIFqIFg; dkim=pass (1536-bit key) header.d=taugh.com header.b=rfc/rZjh
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 2DzREsAxWuNK for <ietf-smtp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 18 Apr 2020 19:54:34 -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 A8F743A16F0 for <ietf-smtp@ietf.org>; Sat, 18 Apr 2020 19:54:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 22893 invoked from network); 19 Apr 2020 02:54:33 -0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=iecc.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=596b.5e9bbd69.k2004; bh=r3MqrBFneuVFha5k/Xkb6rQcOJPhmAa6MTOA3u8r408=; b=FlIFqIFgaxuH/A/ubRtOC81ijjYgoKSGXRb1Rpsjje7lsHImsKFVX80hbytYHJPCaLt086iMblwfGO6VTQkdKvXJX30ECsxmwXzIypDxBfpO3mR9OuS2g9rl0LO9RCkkI1e9Pr+AtydVau0PvHMBJLvRaJ3Z+HPR9Jz+HDTHfUD/1L29Z85vYc9ofr3dQNPdyxre1Fi19/jE3CJvbrgMjgO+/jw7+jpT9sO+DUbx4m/o/hN/AhiWzTQ6h7HboYit
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=taugh.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=596b.5e9bbd69.k2004; bh=r3MqrBFneuVFha5k/Xkb6rQcOJPhmAa6MTOA3u8r408=; b=rfc/rZjh4y/SBGpc3EZ4fPSKj6dRj96466v1IAKOt2q4HKa0BB9IPARvM5lxrLDH8rtd8+2LM2ppYHF4VK5MAuTaJN7rSTios6VCNJmA7EW81gGHlcX64bh04EezWZx+4bC/BPTOaaDGeXoVq1jfrpXEqWk4lVxiL1uSX3uRvDdfkpYuUkh2iCIIEalednjb/VgNiXViCwff6DqQGfgl7x+82rEobHd1rOkr/9nUl7h2zw0+AnzMPYWH6C27tvmG
Received: from ary.qy ([IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126::78:696d:6170]) by imap.iecc.com ([IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126::78:696d:6170]) with ESMTP via TCP6; 19 Apr 2020 02:54:32 -0000
Received: by ary.qy (Postfix, from userid 501) id 85E5117FEE2A; Sat, 18 Apr 2020 22:54:31 -0400 (EDT)
Date: 18 Apr 2020 22:54:31 -0400
Message-Id: <20200419025432.85E5117FEE2A@ary.qy>
From: "John Levine" <johnl@taugh.com>
To: ietf-smtp@ietf.org
Cc: john-ietf@jck.com
In-Reply-To: <C1A5FAAA942E0F363CA177C0@PSB>
Organization: Taughannock Networks
X-Headerized: yes
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-transfer-encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-smtp/sCq-oxK_5j6AWLQ70ZkJq6KjAQ4>
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: Sun, 19 Apr 2020 02:54:36 -0000

In article <C1A5FAAA942E0F363CA177C0@PSB> you write:
>(1) Are DSNs implemented broadly enough that it is reasonable to
>claim that the spec is good enough to allow interoperability?

>(2) Have they been deployed sufficiently to demonstrate that
>they are perceived of as useful by at least some of the people
>some of the time. ...

It seems quite clear that the parts of RFC 3461 that describe a DSN to
be sent back on non-delivery are widely implemented.  The SMTP
extensions aren't, but this is hardly the only RFC where people
implement some parts and not others.

R's,
John