Re: Miscellaneous comments on draft-crocker-email-arch-04.txt
Bruce Lilly <blilly@erols.com> Tue, 05 April 2005 15:55 UTC
Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id j35Ftcp3084778; Tue, 5 Apr 2005 08:55:38 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-ietf-smtp@mail.imc.org)
Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id j35Ftco0084777; Tue, 5 Apr 2005 08:55:38 -0700 (PDT)
X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-smtp@mail.imc.org using -f
Received: from ns5.townisp.com (ns5a.townisp.com [216.195.0.140]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id j35FtbLU084771 for <ietf-smtp@imc.org>; Tue, 5 Apr 2005 08:55:37 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from blilly@erols.com)
Received: from mail.blilly.com (dhcp-0-8-a1-c-fa-f7.cpe.townisp.com [216.49.158.220]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "marty.blilly.com", Issuer "Bruce Lilly" (not verified)) by ns5.townisp.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C43232990D; Tue, 5 Apr 2005 11:55:36 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from marty.blilly.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.blilly.com with ESMTP id j35FtYZ8027986(8.13.1/8.13.1/mail.blilly.com sendmail.mc.mail 1.23 2005/03/23 20:35:49) (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK) ; Tue, 5 Apr 2005 11:55:35 -0400
Received: from marty.blilly.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (authenticated (0 bits)) by marty.blilly.com with ESMTP id j35FtYBN027982(8.13.1/8.13.1/blilly.com submit.mc 1.2 2005/03/17 23:41:52) (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5 bits=128 verify=NO) ; Tue, 5 Apr 2005 11:55:34 -0400
From: Bruce Lilly <blilly@erols.com>
Reply-To: ietf-smtp@imc.org
Organization: Bruce Lilly
To: ietf-smtp@imc.org, Dave Crocker <dcrocker@bbiw.net>
Subject: Re: Miscellaneous comments on draft-crocker-email-arch-04.txt
Date: Tue, 05 Apr 2005 11:55:31 -0400
User-Agent: KMail/1.8
References: <200545101339.938713@bbfujip7>
In-Reply-To: <200545101339.938713@bbfujip7>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Message-Id: <200504051155.32159.blilly@erols.com>
Sender: owner-ietf-smtp@mail.imc.org
Precedence: bulk
List-Archive: <http://www.imc.org/ietf-smtp/mail-archive/>
List-ID: <ietf-smtp.imc.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-smtp-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe>
On Tue April 5 2005 10:13, Dave Crocker wrote: > No, the first standardized architecture was the IFIP WG 6.5 effort, later, > that fed the X.400 work. There was no public, standard "architecture" work > prior to that. OK, if there is some document that can be referenced, a suitable reference in the draft would help. > Saying "core aspects" leaves all sorts of room for "other", and hardly > constitutes an implication that the changes you cite have not occurred. IMO, one of the core aspects was the end-to-end Architectural nature (as in Internet Architecture, hence the reference to RFC 1958) of the service in the decade prior to insertion of transport markings into that content starting with RFC 788. One possible use of an architecture document may be in development of a next-generation mail system. It is in that case important to consider not only how things are now, but also how they were and how the changes have affected the mail system, for better and for worse. Other possible uses include further extensions, and in that case also it is important to differentiate those things which have turned out in retrospect to have caused difficulties, so as to not compound the problems by repeating past mistakes. > the problem with terminology, here, is matching existing practise, in > particular finding a term that people will be comfortable with. as nearly as > i can tell, 'bounce' is a common term, in spite of the fact that it also > applies to intermediate and successful delivery notices. But "bounce" doesn't mean "delay" or "success"; it indicates failure only, and that's the problem. Specifically for delivery status notifications, "delivery status notification" or "DSN" is a suitable standardized term (which can be a noun when used alone to refer to a DSN message -- though adding "message" removes ambiguity -- or it can be a modifier for some noun, e.g. "path"). Alternatively, "delivery status" alone could be used as a modifier, in the way that the noun "notification" can be modified by "delivery status", message disposition", and "message tracking status" to indicate distinct types of notifications. Incidentally, the draft doesn't discuss message tracking at all (RFCs 3885 through 3888). > > Section 2.2.3 states "A Relay may add information to the envelope, such as > > with trace information. However it does not modify existing envelope > > information or the message content semantics". Routes in paths (forward > > and reverse) generally are modified in transit. Routes in paths are now > > somewhat uncommon, but are not obsolete and should not be ignored in a > > description of the mail system architecture. > > what specific changes are you saying are legal for an mta to do? If an MTA at host example.net receives a message with the forward path <@example.net:foo@example.com> and a reverse path <@example.org:bar@example.edu>, both in the SMTP envelope, those may be modified to <foo@example.com> and <@example.net,@example.org:bar@example.edu> respectively. > please cite the rfc2821 text that authorizes it. Section 3.3: The <forward-path> can contain more than just a mailbox. Historically, the <forward-path> can be a source routing list of hosts and the destination mailbox, however, contemporary SMTP clients SHOULD NOT utilize source routes (see appendix C). Servers MUST be prepared to encounter a list of source routes in the forward path, but SHOULD ignore the routes or MAY decline to support the relaying they imply. Similarly, servers MAY decline to accept mail that is destined for other hosts or systems. Note that the MUST is a requirement; SHOULD/SHOULD NOT are (mere) recommendations. Per that section, the reverse path in the example above MAY be modified to simply <bar@example.edu>. See also section 5.2.6 of STD 3 (a.k.a. RFC 1123). > yesthe rMUA take the actions that effect synchronization between the MSs. > > however it is synchronization between the MSs that is of interest. My point is that (contrary to the draft implication) the MSs do not connect to each other, an rMUA connects to both MSs simultaneously and it is the rMUA that effects the synchronization. The operational relationship is between the rMUA and each MS, not between two MSs. In the description of Disconnected operation, "connected" and "reconnected" should each be followed by "to a common rMUA" (connecting two independent rMUAs, one to a local MS and the other to a remote MS won't result in synchronization). > > Section 5.5 should explicitly caution against mangling of Originator > > fields (e.g. see draft-malamud-subject-line-04.txt). > > You might have noticed that that section is rather short. There are all sorts > of things one might put into such a section, but I most clearly was not > intending to make the section be any kind of thorough. I have noticed that the other section 5 subsections have detailed indications of which envelope/header fields may and may not be modified and that such considerations are missing from section 5.5 only.
- Fw: pseudo LAST CALL - draft-crocker-email-arch-0… Hector Santos
- "addressing" comments on draft-crocker-email-arch… Bruce Lilly
- Re: Extraneous CRs in transfer of draft-crocker-e… Hector Santos
- Re: Extraneous CRs in transfer of draft-crocker-e… Keith Moore
- Re: Extraneous CRs in transfer of draft-crocker-e… ned+ietf-smtp
- Re: Extraneous CRs in transfer of draft-crocker-e… Mark E. Mallett
- Re: Extraneous CRs in transfer of draft-crocker-e… Bruce Lilly
- Re: Extraneous CRs in transfer of draft-crocker-e… Hector Santos
- Re: Extraneous CRs in transfer of draft-crocker-e… Dave Crocker
- Re: Extraneous CRs in transfer of draft-crocker-e… Bruce Lilly
- Re: Extraneous CRs in transfer of draft-crocker-e… Dave Crocker
- Re: Extraneous CRs in transfer of draft-crocker-e… Claus Assmann
- Re: Extraneous CRs in transfer of draft-crocker-e… Dave Crocker
- Re: Extraneous CRs in transfer of draft-crocker-e… Claus Assmann
- Re: pseudo LAST CALL - draft-crocker-email-arch-0… Dave Crocker
- Re: Extraneous CRs in transfer of draft-crocker-e… Dave Crocker
- Extraneous CRs in transfer of draft-crocker-email… Bruce Lilly
- Re: pseudo LAST CALL - draft-crocker-email-arch-0… Arnt Gulbrandsen
- Re: pseudo LAST CALL - draft-crocker-email-arch-0… Frank Ellermann
- Re: pseudo LAST CALL - draft-crocker-email-arch-0… Frank Ellermann
- Re: Editorial/typographical/grammatical/punctuati… Bruce Lilly
- Re: pseudo LAST CALL - draft-crocker-email-arch-0… Dave Crocker
- Re: Editorial/typographical/grammatical/punctuati… Dave Crocker
- Re: Editorial/typographical/grammatical/punctuati… Bruce Lilly
- Re: pseudo LAST CALL - draft-crocker-email-arch-0… Mark E. Mallett
- Re: Editorial/typographical/grammatical/punctuati… Dave Crocker
- Editorial/typographical/grammatical/punctuation/u… Bruce Lilly
- Re: pseudo LAST CALL - draft-crocker-email-arch-0… Bruce Lilly
- Re: pseudo LAST CALL - draft-crocker-email-arch-0… Dave Crocker
- Re: pseudo LAST CALL - draft-crocker-email-arch-0… Hector Santos
- Re: Re: pseudo LAST CALL - draft-crocker-email-ar… Hector Santos
- Re: pseudo LAST CALL - draft-crocker-email-arch-0… Dave Crocker
- Re: pseudo LAST CALL - draft-crocker-email-arch-0… Bruce Lilly
- Re: Re: pseudo LAST CALL - draft-crocker-email-ar… willemien
- Re: Re: pseudo LAST CALL - draft-crocker-email-ar… willemien
- Re: Re: pseudo LAST CALL - draft-crocker-email-ar… willemien
- Re: pseudo LAST CALL - draft-crocker-email-arch-0… Hector Santos
- Re: pseudo LAST CALL - draft-crocker-email-arch-0… Hector Santos
- Re: pseudo LAST CALL - draft-crocker-email-arch-0… willemien
- Re: pseudo LAST CALL - draft-crocker-email-arch-0… Hector Santos
- Re: pseudo LAST CALL - draft-crocker-email-arch-0… Dave Crocker
- pseudo LAST CALL - draft-crocker-email-arch-04.txt Dave Crocker
- Re: Miscellaneous comments on draft-crocker-email… Dave Crocker
- Re: reassembly Bruce Lilly
- reassembly Dave Crocker
- Re: "User" confusion and incomplete description o… Bruce Lilly
- Re: "addressing" comments on draft-crocker-email-… Bruce Lilly
- Re: Miscellaneous comments on draft-crocker-email… Frank Ellermann
- Re: "User" confusion and incomplete description o… Frank Ellermann
- Re: "addressing" comments on draft-crocker-email-… Frank Ellermann
- Re: message-identifiers vs. "new message" in draf… Bruce Lilly
- Re: Miscellaneous comments on draft-crocker-email… Bruce Lilly
- Re: "User" confusion and incomplete description o… Bruce Lilly
- Re: message-identifiers vs. "new message" in draf… Bruce Lilly
- Re: Miscellaneous comments on draft-crocker-email… Tony Finch
- Re: "User" confusion and incomplete description o… Tony Finch
- Re: message-identifiers vs. "new message" in draf… Tony Finch
- Re: Miscellaneous comments on draft-crocker-email… Keith Moore
- Re: "User" confusion and incomplete description o… Bruce Lilly
- Re: Miscellaneous comments on draft-crocker-email… Bruce Lilly
- Re: message-identifiers vs. "new message" in draf… Carl S. Gutekunst
- Re: message-identifiers vs. "new message" in draf… Bruce Lilly
- Re: "User" confusion and incomplete description o… Keith Moore
- Re: Miscellaneous comments on draft-crocker-email… Tony Finch
- Re: "User" confusion and incomplete description o… Tony Finch
- Re: message-identifiers vs. "new message" in draf… Tony Finch
- Re: Miscellaneous comments on draft-crocker-email… Bruce Lilly
- Re: Miscellaneous comments on draft-crocker-email… Dave Crocker
- Re: Miscellaneous comments on draft-crocker-email… Bruce Lilly
- Miscellaneous comments on draft-crocker-email-arc… Bruce Lilly
- "User" confusion and incomplete description of ar… Bruce Lilly
- Re: pseudo LAST CALL - draft-crocker-email-arch-0… Dave Crocker
- Re: pseudo LAST CALL - draft-crocker-email-arch-0… Keith Moore
- Re: pseudo LAST CALL - draft-crocker-email-arch-0… Carl S. Gutekunst
- Re: pseudo LAST CALL - draft-crocker-email-arch-0… Dave Crocker
- Re: pseudo LAST CALL - draft-crocker-email-arch-0… Bruce Lilly
- Re: message-identifiers vs. "new message" in draf… Bruce Lilly
- message-identifiers vs. "new message" in draft-cr… Bruce Lilly
- Re: message-identifiers vs. "new message" in draf… Tony Finch
- Re: message-identifiers vs. "new message" in draf… Frank Ellermann
- Re: message-identifiers vs. "new message" in draf… Dave Crocker