IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: IETF Policy on dogfood consumption or avoidance - SMTP version

Nick Hilliard <nick@foobar.org> Mon, 16 December 2019 11:27 UTC

Return-Path: <nick@foobar.org>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7CD5A12021D; Mon, 16 Dec 2019 03:27:48 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=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 TLnNpxXsciVj; Mon, 16 Dec 2019 03:27:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.netability.ie (mail.netability.ie [IPv6:2a03:8900:0:100::5]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9F13E120169; Mon, 16 Dec 2019 03:27:46 -0800 (PST)
X-Envelope-To: ietf@ietf.org
Received: from cupcake.local (089-101-195156.ntlworld.ie [89.101.195.156] (may be forged)) (authenticated bits=0) by mail.netability.ie (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPSA id xBGBRfMA005869 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 16 Dec 2019 11:27:42 GMT (envelope-from nick@foobar.org)
X-Authentication-Warning: cheesecake.ibn.ie: Host 089-101-195156.ntlworld.ie [89.101.195.156] (may be forged) claimed to be cupcake.local
Subject: Re: IETF Policy on dogfood consumption or avoidance - SMTP version
To: Valdis Klētnieks <valdis.kletnieks@vt.edu>
Cc: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>, ietf@ietf.org, iesg@ietf.org
References: <8EE11B75E1F8A7E7105A1573@PSB> <6a0a5f8a-9da6-30e7-f4b9-0b263cda507a@foobar.org> <755701.1576452661@turing-police>
From: Nick Hilliard <nick@foobar.org>
Message-ID: <c07234b4-b304-17a2-1f5c-4b411e47760b@foobar.org>
Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2019 11:27:39 +0000
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 PostboxApp/7.0.9
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <755701.1576452661@turing-police>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Language: en-GB
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/8TzB1LqG5jKl5iH6Z9ku5MerUGw>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2019 11:27:48 -0000

Valdis Klētnieks wrote on 15/12/2019 23:31:
> The point is that, given a syntactically correct and acceptable EHLO,
> there's a massive difference between:
> 
> mail.ietf.org says "550 5.7.1 mail rejected due to EHLO violating local policy"
> 
> mail.ietf.org says "550 5.7.1 mail rejected due to EHLO RFC2821 violation".

there's no requirement for the text from a 550 reply code to be parsed 
by the MTA, so the difference is in the eye of the person receiving the 
bounce message.  If it's semantically inaccurate, then maybe someone can 
change the text and we can move on?

Nick

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email