IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [EAI] Rather serious bug in RFC 6531

ned+ima@mrochek.com Tue, 05 January 2021 13:29 UTC

Return-Path: <ned+ima@mrochek.com>
X-Original-To: ima@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ima@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 95CE93A0EB3 for <ima@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 5 Jan 2021 05:29:06 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.099
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.099 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_PASS=-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=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 u-nWju2Akj6u for <ima@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 5 Jan 2021 05:29:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: from plum.mrochek.com (plum.mrochek.com [172.95.64.195]) (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 8025B3A0EA7 for <ima@ietf.org>; Tue, 5 Jan 2021 05:29:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: from dkim-sign.mauve.mrochek.com by mauve.mrochek.com (PMDF V6.1-1 #35243) id <01RTZ62SHPWG00DZ2Z@mauve.mrochek.com> for ima@ietf.org; Mon, 4 Jan 2021 09:56:20 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=mrochek.com; s=201712; t=1609782980; bh=xPQNuEDwZZnhxJb/PYSVEtjgQWRb1H1Khc0LL4pREiQ=; h=From:Cc:Date:Subject:In-reply-to:References:To:From; b=rsAXb/63xO8BolB1V1iOomDqqUZoW77Y2vB3QYUTwMtVTGYkatLK/TSMdD46RbVCQ UGE8okMUIaJ9AyxvjBrAn6TkiETHN4k+D0DZg7Px/xq5DcQioHqeVmjbgS7vyBNtWi 4qldtlXJ8PHNskKiUiYZtBamuuEjglhYCi5M3KdA=
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 <01RTUUND7D1S004QVR@mauve.mrochek.com> (original mail from NED@mauve.mrochek.com) for ima@ietf.org; Mon, 4 Jan 2021 09:56:17 -0800 (PST)
From: ned+ima@mrochek.com
Cc: ima@ietf.org
Message-id: <01RTZ62Q9PR6004QVR@mauve.mrochek.com>
Date: Mon, 04 Jan 2021 09:53:15 -0800
In-reply-to: "Your message dated Mon, 04 Jan 2021 12:32:48 -0500" <20210104173248.51F3154CD6FA@ary.qy>
References: <f8ef03e7-59da-9753-9dad-4dc992b046eb@isode.com> <20210104173248.51F3154CD6FA@ary.qy>
To: John Levine <johnl@taugh.com>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ima/0Sz3dLPds9gvWo5QRKQ0r5vEqJc>
Subject: Re: [EAI] Rather serious bug in RFC 6531
X-BeenThere: ima@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "EAI \(Email Address Internationalization\)" <ima.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ima>, <mailto:ima-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ima/>
List-Post: <mailto:ima@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ima-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ima>, <mailto:ima-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 05 Jan 2021 13:29:07 -0000

> In article <f8ef03e7-59da-9753-9dad-4dc992b046eb@isode.com> you write:
> >My personal opinion is that the likelyhood of older versions being
> >implemented is low and my desire to minimize number of different WITH
> >keywords is high, so I think the decision in RFC 6531 not to change
> >keywords is the right one.

> Having just done some EAI compliance tests for the UASG, I can report
> that all the systems that have any EAI support at all do what the RFC
> says. The SMTP keyword is SMTPUTF8, and the WITH clause is UTF8SMTP.
> (Well, except for Microsoft whose WITH clauses are wrong with or
> without EAI.)

FWIW, we generate the entire list of values: UTF8SMTP[A][S] and UTF8LMTP[A][S]
as necessary.

> At this point I am not aware of any live implmentations of the experimental
> version other than in IMAP at Coremail, and that one is sufficiently broken
> that I doubt anyone is using it.

> I agree we should leave it alone.

Yeah, this seems like the right choice to me as well.

				Ned

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email