Re: [Jmap] Address Validation (was Re: Submission)

Paul Smith <paul@pscs.co.uk> Tue, 25 April 2017 08:32 UTC

Return-Path: <paul@pscs.co.uk>
X-Original-To: jmap@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: jmap@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 171FE1293D9 for <jmap@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 25 Apr 2017 01:32:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.622
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.622 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-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 NKSF8rHQWcOb for <jmap@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 25 Apr 2017 01:32:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.pscs.co.uk (mail.pscs.co.uk [188.65.177.237]) (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 3F1271293DF for <jmap@ietf.org>; Tue, 25 Apr 2017 01:32:53 -0700 (PDT)
Authentication-Results: mail.pscs.co.uk; spf=none; auth=pass (cram-md5) smtp.auth=paul
Received: from lmail.pscs.co.uk ([82.68.5.206]) by mail.pscs.co.uk ([188.65.177.237] running VPOP3) with ESMTP for <jmap@ietf.org>; Tue, 25 Apr 2017 09:32:37 +0100
Authentication-Results: lmail.pscs.co.uk; spf=none; auth=pass (cram-md5) smtp.auth=paul
Received: from [192.168.66.101] ([192.168.66.101]) by lmail.pscs.co.uk ([192.168.66.70] running VPOP3) with ESMTPSA for <jmap@ietf.org>; Tue, 25 Apr 2017 09:26:47 +0100
To: jmap@ietf.org
References: <1492996915.3310412.953749536.0F1C8B46@webmail.messagingengine.com> <20170424014957.39235.qmail@ary.lan> <emb951e04d-3dc9-4244-915b-21bd272245ff@bodybag> <alpine.OSX.2.20.1704240925190.68584@ary.qy> <emced4cfbd-91e8-4ad7-974e-ab757894cf10@bodybag>
From: Paul Smith <paul@pscs.co.uk>
Message-ID: <6ccd8a82-5132-a38f-d7eb-cc3eeeb922b1@pscs.co.uk>
Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2017 09:26:46 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <emced4cfbd-91e8-4ad7-974e-ab757894cf10@bodybag>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Authenticated-Sender: paul
X-Server: VPOP3 Enterprise V7.2 - Registered
X-Organisation: Paul Smith Computer Services
X-VPOP3Tester: 12 345
X-Authenticated-Sender: paul
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/jmap/H5s78nQT9o5_hxFeYKGy50P7Qr4>
Subject: Re: [Jmap] Address Validation (was Re: Submission)
X-BeenThere: jmap@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: JSON Message Access Protocol <jmap.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/jmap>, <mailto:jmap-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/jmap/>
List-Post: <mailto:jmap@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:jmap-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/jmap>, <mailto:jmap-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2017 08:32:58 -0000

On 24/04/2017 22:37, Adrien de Croy wrote:
>
>>
>> On all the mail systems I know, if you try to send mail at a domain 
>> that doesn't exist, it fails instantly.
> I've seen a lot delayed, especially when the initial submission server 
> forwards to another pre-configured "smarthost" which then delays it 
> further. 

I've seen delays as well. Often related to badly behaved DNS servers 
which do strange things with non-existent domains (eg not returning 
anything, rather than returning an NX error). The mail server then 
should play safe and retry for a while.

Remember that a lot of mail servers are deployed on small networks with 
badly behaving infrastructure. Eg - how is a mail server supposed to 
indicate whether a recipient address is valid if the Internet connection 
is down and the DNS server has crashed? I know it seems unpopular here, 
but there are good reasons for a lot (not all) of the ways things happen 
with SMTP/IMAP4.