IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [ietf-smtp] [Proposal] confusing parts of the mail system, was 250-MARKDOWN

Ned Freed <ned.freed@mrochek.com> Thu, 17 January 2019 02:48 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 1F914130F4A for <ietf-smtp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 16 Jan 2019 18:48:16 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.208
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.208 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RDNS_NONE=0.793, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no 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 KlXONxxCTe0D for <ietf-smtp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 16 Jan 2019 18:48:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mauve.mrochek.com (unknown [66.159.242.17]) (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 545F2130E9C for <ietf-smtp@ietf.org>; Wed, 16 Jan 2019 18:48:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: from dkim-sign.mauve.mrochek.com by mauve.mrochek.com (PMDF V6.1-1 #35243) id <01R238XL9CB400GHJT@mauve.mrochek.com> for ietf-smtp@ietf.org; Wed, 16 Jan 2019 18:43:11 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=mrochek.com; s=201712; t=1547692990; bh=Ye0PJcomIjcNTgTiC2Tmp7frp3SltmymfAwz+uL6jdo=; h=Cc:Date:From:Subject:In-reply-to:References:To:From; b=g6FYbgGLh6f50MrBtm9vgdL0JfnEXKYaIqQ+tcD/Gj6psp/OTt8fdIIF58zpYuEoF Jj4bs5uhec2/2ko6oVBO6H6lBhw6rA+PYzBN67Jd3abs6TnB7RkF3AShKF4R7ZzxMy bXIgcvf3XyiWZFExS3dRySVmKihfMImVUoNeJbXI=
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET="us-ascii"
Received: from mauve.mrochek.com by mauve.mrochek.com (PMDF V6.1-1 #35243) id <01R1N39ADWKW00004L@mauve.mrochek.com>; Wed, 16 Jan 2019 18:43:04 -0800 (PST)
Cc: Gene Hightower <gene@digilicious.com>, John R Levine <johnl@taugh.com>, ietf-smtp <ietf-smtp@ietf.org>
Message-id: <01R238XJND6O00004L@mauve.mrochek.com>
Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2019 18:17:19 -0800
From: Ned Freed <ned.freed@mrochek.com>
In-reply-to: "Your message dated Wed, 16 Jan 2019 10:20:23 -0800" <CALui8C3934HTxrY-JGB3rAu1dX1z8oz1AK8jmZLsZQhSuxDszw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAOEezJTxTN9x_JFXgLidj9k8NVgFTRyqyQc4Aak8UEQuvjiM0w@mail.gmail.com> <20190109143529.33122200C76CAD@ary.local> <460d4589-5517-3762-5764-7474523dd09b@digilicious.com> <01R1U95VCAHI00004L@mauve.mrochek.com> <74e22977-8ee8-c762-4882-b56e5911430e@digilicious.com> <CALui8C2qzp_jBo=YHA+XXBGF6+jigDeEaX24L2bohQBdaXKHwg@mail.gmail.com> <2ea48fe6-eb48-02e1-d3e2-53782f3ff758@digilicious.com> <alpine.OSX.2.21.1901111607320.22582@ary.qy> <bcf3958d-cd42-fc3c-57fc-56a5f8394b37@digilicious.com> <alpine.OSX.2.21.1901111647330.22750@ary.qy> <5b6ddc8f-9c53-df04-0f61-721fad0972f3@digilicious.com> <CALui8C3934HTxrY-JGB3rAu1dX1z8oz1AK8jmZLsZQhSuxDszw@mail.gmail.com>
To: John Bucy <jbucy=40google.com@dmarc.ietf.org>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-smtp/v7NghslKk3fdiFMYTVaQAunECuk>
Subject: Re: [ietf-smtp] [Proposal] confusing parts of the mail system, was 250-MARKDOWN
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: Thu, 17 Jan 2019 02:48:16 -0000

> On Fri, Jan 11, 2019 at 1:58 PM Gene Hightower <gene@digilicious.com> wrote:

> > Again: can we start with CHUNKING?  Does anyone *object* to CHUNKING?
> >

> CHUNKING works today. Hotmail/Exchange/Office365 was the only thing that I
> was aware of that advertised it when I implemented it for Gmail ~2013. IIRC
> Exim added it a few years ago. Postfix added it in 2018, not sure if it's
> enabled by default.

We (Sun/Oracle) implemented CHUNKING support in 2006. We have not
noticed a significant performance improvement, but our DATA pipeline
is pretty heavily optimized.

A quick check of my home logs over the past year or so shows 37% of outgoing
messages were sent with chunking and 49% were received with it. Not exactly
rare.

The usual problem with having CHUNKING enabled by default is when someone
installs a broken SMTP security proxy that doesn't understand CHUNKING and
doesn't know how to filter the CHUNKING extension out of the EHLO response. And
then complains about things not working.

Such garbage is getting rarer over time but is still all too common.

As for BINARYMIME, we implemented that for SUBMIT in 2012 due to a couple of
customer requests. As I explained previously, our view is that BINARYMIME makes
sense for SUBMIT because it is far more common for it to be
bandwidth-constained than SMTP transfers, and transcoding is acceptable at
submit time.

We don't have any real way of knowing to what extent it's used, but given the
relative paucity of problem reports my suspiciion is "not much". I'm not
entirely sure why - a SUBMIT client support should not be that difficult.

				Ned

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email