Re: [ietf-smtp] ietf.org SMTP server "RFC2821 Violation" for EHLO ip-literal.
S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com> Mon, 16 December 2019 17:08 UTC
Return-Path: <sm@elandsys.com>
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 0FE90120869 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 16 Dec 2019 09:08:15 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.698
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.698 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_INVALID=0.1, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=fail (1024-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.d=elandsys.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 nK4EF7rOFn_p for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 16 Dec 2019 09:08:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx.elandsys.com (mx.elandsys.com [162.213.2.210]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 737B6120864 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 16 Dec 2019 09:08:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: from DESKTOP-K6V9C2L.elandsys.com ([102.116.40.13]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.15.2/8.14.5) with ESMTPSA id xBGH80rG019087 (version=TLSv1 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 16 Dec 2019 09:08:11 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=elandsys.com; s=mail; t=1576516092; x=1576602492; i=@elandsys.com; bh=DZKOeAqWJL0jhmRhm9CorScLAT+5l/GU/MhbY6qFVy8=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:In-Reply-To:References; b=1rCr9BY51YJvXcS8eZcLakudg+iwRLDP2oomIgr4djwpSd2BOhqGnP3JobruU1Qsn ClF64z5WKs+kZ8EhvtxcIRzEV5Fq7cm9nC63QeEWSfs1K2J4ta/JAJ0KkVaaDTO9aE yOtmdeKKG0EDCcT54gZ/X1tOh80+tYIvs/3uNSaA=
Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20191216083916.0bbb8c60@elandnews.com>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6
Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2019 08:49:29 -0800
To: Valdis Kletnieks <valdis.kletnieks@vt.edu>, ietf@ietf.org
From: S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com>
Subject: Re: [ietf-smtp] ietf.org SMTP server "RFC2821 Violation" for EHLO ip-literal.
In-Reply-To: <785071.1576491379@turing-police>
References: <5DE4108D.4010502@isdg.net> <86D7D0984B3485183CA197D1@PSB> <3fd44572-85f6-3303-7389-90e645727a7e@network-heretics.com> <1011A6A972368359AC3AFD6B@PSB> <a60e1378-d01d-398f-8260-de68234ad504@network-heretics.com> <22805.1575238879@turing-police> <df6797f1-402f-9417-5db1-fb512a55c0d4@network-heretics.com> <25560.1575243278@turing-police> <8FF3DFCD-8DCB-49F2-8700-E5A4DDB74996@dukhovni.org> <FB7EFEEC21381F52724602F2@PSB> <08E6B383-C1FB-49A1-9824-50DFA59D95A1@dukhovni.org> <a7841798-8f56-c128-f34d-b8832c7453d2@tana.it> <d51a1d06-109d-07cc-37c9-634637d19625@network-heretics.com> <c831575a-f8ce-5ca6-10d0-62f884cd0a7f@tana.it> <746928.1576442152@turing-police> <A644729A-91F9-42A3-AE0E-E2D573DCD86A@dukhovni.org> <6.2.5.6.2.20191215154527.0e2cb670@elandnews.com> <785071.1576491379@turing-police>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/Mp2Atl8cF3DYu3ebM_7PPdOB08g>
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 17:08:15 -0000
Hi Valdis, At 02:16 AM 16-12-2019, Valdis Kletnieks wrote: >I have to wonder if we shouldn't go in the opposite direction - having a >protocol standard that's quit nailed down so it can move to Full Standard, and >an "operational guidance" RFC/BCP that would be easier to update/replace every >5-10 years as the landscape changed.... It is better to focus on the move to Full Standard, if there is interest in doing that, and have the "operational guidance" as a separate discussion. The "updates" is also another discussion. Regards, S. Moonesamy