Re: [ietf-smtp] Good to see new list, comments about the "purpose"

Hector Santos <> Wed, 29 July 2020 19:09 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id B4CE13A0E3B for <>; Wed, 29 Jul 2020 12:09:17 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.101
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.101 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, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.b=TpM/6Mo1; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.b=Imt+rxAC
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id khgDvUEhsrrt for <>; Wed, 29 Jul 2020 12:09:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9459D3A0E49 for <>; Wed, 29 Jul 2020 12:09:15 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1;; s=tms1; a=rsa-sha1; c=simple/relaxed; l=1245; t=1596049747;; atpsh=sha1; h=Received:Received:Received:Received:Message-ID:Date:From: Organization:To:Subject:List-ID; bh=88bLgJhkbz5JH+Jrk1BTbhBrdvA=; b=TpM/6Mo1r2g+1wjOEhrFS6rVBj9ciT11Gcw3mmn+1j/oGrWDQVce1yr/zhAPM2 1Oucl45LwW9vKz6+i/L2bMcQicTigs0jTsIZRlb+MHYeyOqMtsUZ5oL5+BILordo jX+6Wv1qsEVZfOBsDtWEWMlgqEW26NvvvRLpZbp03CtI4=
Received: by (Wildcat! SMTP Router v8.0.454.10) for; Wed, 29 Jul 2020 15:09:07 -0400
Authentication-Results:; dkim=pass header.s=tms1; dmarc=pass policy=reject (atps signer);
Received: from ([]) by (Wildcat! SMTP v8.0.454.10) with ESMTP id 2482039554.1.6760; Wed, 29 Jul 2020 15:09:07 -0400
DKIM-Signature: v=1;; s=tms1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/relaxed; l=1245; t=1596049636; h=Received:Received: Message-ID:Date:From:Organization:To:Subject:List-ID; bh=G8u+gMe Qr3BXxrs9Put/pHx1f9izDwSzRVzEi/N6x58=; b=Imt+rxACewrHV9Tmsj/CTu4 VDIV5AeMDovm9Tg8iuAHz6Po4WU5fUVDSmf7R/t3uYID5zQb0c9+YG3t+g+ZjNtL ZZcoIA8FCdUOpcJZNXjcqwdzoQ3UVq9S3uRctARQzmsRJQVBrSO2A/Hkd5mQhpZD 7x01kOilVAhoER8xj46k=
Received: by (Wildcat! SMTP Router v8.0.454.10) for; Wed, 29 Jul 2020 15:07:16 -0400
Received: from [] ([]) by (Wildcat! SMTP v8.0.454.10) with ESMTP id 2192810921.1.60520; Wed, 29 Jul 2020 15:07:15 -0400
Message-ID: <>
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2020 15:09:10 -0400
From: Hector Santos <>
Organization: Santronics Software, Inc.
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.8.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [ietf-smtp] Good to see new list, comments about the "purpose"
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Discussion of issues related to Simple Mail Transfer Protocol \(SMTP\) \[RFC 821, RFC 2821, RFC 5321\]" <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2020 19:09:18 -0000

On 7/29/2020 12:19 PM, Dave Crocker wrote:
> On 7/29/2020 9:08 AM, Michael Peddemors wrote:
>> I believe this is an opportunity, and the BOF should consider that
>> the working group's mandate be extended larger than originally
>> suggested.
>> As pointed out previously on other threads, having a working group
>> that covers the whole email core, would enable this working group to
>> tackle more wide ranging email problems, that are important to the
>> internet community.
> That would be an excellent way to avoid getting the primary task done,
> which is to get the two, primary specification elevated to full
> standard.  It's a variation on attempting to boil the ocean.
> It's not that the larger scope isn't worthy, it's that it isn't
> practical.
> After the primary task is completed, it might make sense to consider
> rechartering, for a scope of the type you suggest.  But not before then.

Dave,  I agree with you, keep the eye on the prize, RFC5322/5321 
standardization. Very important.  I'm sure there will be plenty of 
"Heads Up" discussions, items that can perhaps be phrased as 
implementation notes.

Hector Santos,