Re: [EAI] Rather serious bug in RFC 6531

John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> Mon, 04 January 2021 19:01 UTC

Return-Path: <johnl@iecc.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 EDC1E3A0FC4 for <ima@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 4 Jan 2021 11:01:21 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.048
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.048 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.248, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=iecc.com header.b=oHs2X7iV; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=taugh.com header.b=Vjcdi/Fy
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 A16QSBJVRVGb for <ima@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 4 Jan 2021 11:01:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: from gal.iecc.com (gal.iecc.com [IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126:0:43:6f73:7461]) (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 D52933A0EA9 for <ima@ietf.org>; Mon, 4 Jan 2021 11:01:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: (qmail 81527 invoked from network); 4 Jan 2021 19:01:17 -0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=iecc.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:cleverness; s=13e75.5ff365fd.k2101; bh=42IDcwsZ+6B1dpFeK9J9qAxNlTyxMhb1Op7NPjbpm1s=; b=oHs2X7iV7M7Uz1zhuNDbkjeRzTe4Lj8QAEPOAntRhdKZoqeYcWZfZbDc487JxfHZz5bnHyQStmMa0DD1GcQVW0lXvPWf1tOvtf4p6U/OE+i3qbNydOH12bkuy53zl9FkoMYh9LoBgda9el0AW2al/nlwSM6ax8ucXoXNTUalBcVak98mavalS9g3qAcUHeLk5YxNibM8qNfbtVC02kcUYgrBSnk1RFDPNOM1ZT2FtPxk9fG+Z++c8iRKP2cBYHxytxI5qBkeBz7UKJAe+EeuckpupVSLozqFksnu86pyLeYJPO1bEKAVRvrV/ndBVVti1NbNnFb5b+yQbPP5T5WivQ==
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=taugh.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:cleverness; s=13e75.5ff365fd.k2101; bh=42IDcwsZ+6B1dpFeK9J9qAxNlTyxMhb1Op7NPjbpm1s=; b=Vjcdi/Fyr8dsZrXg48izwyP4oj1JrA+6+qjsj84NIZFQqOu7CBux3jSDTbM51TenSFmvHP38JMVvdV82b784XVhmy5V3M073dB5d906DYIUYZJgy9IM9v/cX8atvHZF37DTosK1CKssY5GxYvZIBp9OYEI9lJAnu5IvEbo5XMCGlED6VCsHFd5WNME2l8mSlUENxgDFszS7eymfWk453zW5ymq84oOox/Ke3nn3OJSdcoEfQrd1KZZ/eXZQ5qnYE8dW1VuIk4uVZsAUCoDy8+ljnwNAVm9brG3NGz4v+AVxUrXQ+s08PaqThzwxrwomNMEVxzDqM/M1WwJW+d/AVzA==
Received: from ary.qy ([IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126::78:696d:6170]) by imap.iecc.com ([IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126::78:696d:6170]) with ESMTPS (TLS1.2 ECDHE-RSA AES-256-GCM AEAD) via TCP6; 04 Jan 2021 19:01:17 -0000
Received: by ary.qy (Postfix, from userid 501) id E5E2554DA072; Mon, 4 Jan 2021 14:01:16 -0500 (EST)
Date: 4 Jan 2021 14:01:16 -0500
Message-Id: <20210104190116.E5E2554DA072@ary.qy>
From: "John Levine" <johnl@taugh.com>
To: ima@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <F9872BDC3C6A75715CCDC997@PSB>
Organization: Taughannock Networks
X-Headerized: yes
Cleverness: minimal
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-transfer-encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ima/vvEVzOkg4oeed1jFbhJT9ABTyd0>
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: Mon, 04 Jan 2021 19:01:22 -0000

In article <F9872BDC3C6A75715CCDC997@PSB> you write:
>Our of curiosity, are/were your tests sensitive enough to tell
>the difference?

They weren't looking for nested addresses if that's what you're
asking. But if they used UTF8SMTP as the keyword, they'd have failed
and nobody did.  I noticed the Coremail IMAP stuff because it was
failing tests in odd ways.

>As you hint, Microsoft has significant history of qualifying for
>"really strange", going back at least to the implementations of
>Exchange Server in the early 1990s whose version of SMTP used an
>X.400 design and terminology.

>> I agree we should leave it alone.
>
>I think it is important that we discuss this and make an
>explicit decision.

I think we should make an explicit decision to leave it alone. If we
changed it I wouldn't expect implementations to change anytime soon.

R's,
John