IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [taugh.com-standards] Re: Gen-ART and OPS-Dir review of draft-ietf-appsawg-nullmx-06

"John R Levine" <johnl@taugh.com> Thu, 04 September 2014 16:37 UTC

Return-Path: <johnl@taugh.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 12A861A00DD for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 4 Sep 2014 09:37:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.137
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.137 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, HOST_MISMATCH_NET=0.311, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=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 NWh8PBi5D4WG for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 4 Sep 2014 09:37:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from miucha.iecc.com (abusenet-1-pt.tunnel.tserv4.nyc4.ipv6.he.net [IPv6:2001:470:1f06:1126::2]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6D0CA1A043D for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 4 Sep 2014 09:37:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 32646 invoked from network); 4 Sep 2014 16:37:51 -0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=iecc.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:content-type:user-agent; s=7f85.5408955f.k1409; bh=ZvMISkl+So/xhX/nVNYSod0/7BOXvqpN7Z12n8Ed0mo=; b=Q1PYhVEeC/yKnXvctqzuSuf2Fxg+EwDB6ehnvATP+I155mig41wL6Aelu2u4jYB5gJpIpfHjyoNia3nWxMeJ790q47+4h6tO/O+a/rj30+3m45H2KSxXbZsQaeaqCb+vD9UQ4BkMMxkJUxp6aajir6hjZhBsxqt20e2IDEyKT3bu22HJlcmjcfo/LuaVvJIKegtoTT+OUJf68zmLN2dXD/XZJxjQjbAg6tQgHkHv182jxytpbR47OVPMXMcxtRgZ
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=taugh.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:content-type:user-agent; s=7f85.5408955f.k1409; bh=ZvMISkl+So/xhX/nVNYSod0/7BOXvqpN7Z12n8Ed0mo=; b=xjBXW4lhFhKZPh6yElCsQyE4Krz6dj34IvFe9vMkI/H55JblFfkxKuiC/EMHh2/0waYghikYEG3a/H1bjgJJVyKEjv+cW0hWiF7RTz54zOas5jP1WuCygkL1XY0yNJoMAHCxzKCqRmUz644oh/bOhGzfH5Xjd92Q6XeC3qZPd+T0Zs8LthFFViz06sLxZ51Zt0XHTBsSjkSIRuU+DM2PK6o9LSVy3BlnZ/OCDs8C7SQJZwvnMBA8mbqL8S8pbo+a
Received: from localhost ([IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126::78:696d:6170]) by imap.iecc.com ([IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126::78:696d:6170]) with ESMTPS (TLS1.0/X.509/SHA1) via TCP6; 04 Sep 2014 16:37:51 -0000
Date: Thu, 04 Sep 2014 12:37:50 -0400
Message-ID: <alpine.BSF.2.11.1409041232500.23605@joyce.lan>
From: John R Levine <johnl@taugh.com>
To: Wietse Venema <wietse@porcupine.org>
Subject: Re: [taugh.com-standards] Re: Gen-ART and OPS-Dir review of draft-ietf-appsawg-nullmx-06
In-Reply-To: <3hpmKd3LBYzbcfr@spike.porcupine.org>
References: <3hpmKd3LBYzbcfr@spike.porcupine.org>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.11 (BSF 23 2013-08-11)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset="US-ASCII"; format="flowed"
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/snYAl7BYDy9o8fdEaXMiFN2u9zA
Cc: IETF general list <ietf@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Thu, 04 Sep 2014 16:37:58 -0000

>> No, 550 to reject the MAIL FROM is correct.  See RFC 5321, sec 3.3.  It's
>
> My concern is with sending 521 after RCPT TO.  Sorry for coming
> with this late in the process. I wasn't aware of the nullmx revival.

If you get 521 as a server greeting it means "I'm not a mail server."  If 
you get 521 as a response to RCPT TO it means "That's not a mail domain."

It's hard to imagine a situation where you'd want to retry either.  It is 
true that in the former case the whole session fails, while in the latter 
case the recipient address is invalid, but those don't seem hard to tell 
apart.

We're working on an 1846-bis that explains this more clearly.

Regards,
John Levine, johnl@taugh.com, Taughannock Networks, Trumansburg NY
Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email