Re: [ietf-smtp] How wrong is this EAI implementation

Arnt Gulbrandsen <arnt@gulbrandsen.priv.no> Tue, 23 June 2020 13:09 UTC

Return-Path: <arnt@gulbrandsen.priv.no>
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 D6C263A0C6A for <ietf-smtp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 23 Jun 2020 06:09:29 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.097
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.097 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_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=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=gulbrandsen.priv.no
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 BwroIXi6JlXF for <ietf-smtp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 23 Jun 2020 06:09:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from stabil.gulbrandsen.priv.no (stabil.gulbrandsen.priv.no [144.76.73.169]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8ACD43A0C63 for <ietf-smtp@ietf.org>; Tue, 23 Jun 2020 06:09:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from stabil.gulbrandsen.priv.no (stabil.gulbrandsen.priv.no [IPv6:2a01:4f8:191:91a8::3]) by stabil.gulbrandsen.priv.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5D2DEC00EF; Tue, 23 Jun 2020 14:14:54 +0100 (IST)
Authentication-Results: stabil.gulbrandsen.priv.no; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=gulbrandsen.priv.no
Authentication-Results: stabil.gulbrandsen.priv.no; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=arnt@gulbrandsen.priv.no
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=gulbrandsen.priv.no; s=mail; t=1592918094; bh=buFgE37TAUYX0feRQsy4RqmAlyDUQLSACsy5XEmCbg0=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=azzHvh0AmiQgxHl6E76dr7Yp3S+nIebhmOLMnGMhsURAQVicIIomj1GCu4E7yqPpG qTiT1+C+3H5Dyzr+nxWlW/4K2cIEaW1v9+11uiFsWP98AYbuHHHrDxeNX9ixJHWvCZ MFfmMQ9xFuQiDe5oIuEJdpwJMOhD09j04jWTGNQI=
Received: from arnt@gulbrandsen.priv.no by stabil.gulbrandsen.priv.no (Archiveopteryx 3.2.0) with esmtpsa id 1592918092-9695-9692/9/71; Tue, 23 Jun 2020 13:14:52 +0000
From: Arnt Gulbrandsen <arnt@gulbrandsen.priv.no>
To: John Levine <johnl@taugh.com>
Cc: ietf-smtp@ietf.org
Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2020 15:09:25 +0200
Mime-Version: 1.0
Message-Id: <156f485a-e927-4e0e-95e9-2aa5d21c5c2e@gulbrandsen.priv.no>
In-Reply-To: <20200621145342.7364B1B4460D@ary.qy>
References: <alpine.OSX.2.22.407.2006201429080.28792@ary.qy> <2B0EB3A9E99431F86620038A@[10.1.10.18]> <alpine.OSX.2.22.407.2006201823060.29484@ary.qy> <DC26ED76E7E316714AB2B820@[10.1.10.18]> <a058a5bf-487e-63ca-70bd-4e2765d3b9b9@network-heretics.com> <alpine.OSX.2.22.407.2006201429080.28792@ary.qy> <2B0EB3A9E99431F86620038A@[10.1.10.18]> <alpine.OSX.2.22.407.2006201823060.29484@ary.qy> <DC26ED76E7E316714AB2B820@[10.1.10.18]> <a058a5bf-487e-63ca-70bd-4e2765d3b9b9@network-heretics.com> <kzlyExy/3YBZVUSNURxDqMLjYwWYAVGpn6yogCjhITg=.sha-256@antelope.email> <20200621145342.7364B1B4460D@ary.qy>
User-Agent: Trojita/0.7; Qt/5.7.1; xcb; Linux; Devuan GNU/Linux 2.1 (ascii)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-smtp/wXtpgJ3Aho6w3hLlalTNL3mFyKs>
Subject: Re: [ietf-smtp] How wrong is this EAI implementation
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: Tue, 23 Jun 2020 13:09:30 -0000

On Sunday 21 June 2020 16:53:42 CEST, John Levine wrote:
> I don't think that 5321 requires that bob@example.com and bob@EXAMPLE.COM
> be treated the same, either.
>
> Beyond some point, you can't force people to be reasonable.

Agree entirely. And this is why I think the EAI specs are too subtle on 
this point.

I do have an opinion about what that point is, and what the documents ought 
to say. But my real issue is that it's possible to review source code 
against every MUST and SHOULD in 653x and miss that there's something to 
consider.

Arnt