IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: header-munging

"Randall C. Gellens" <RANDY@mpa15ab.mv.unisys.com> Wed, 11 September 1996 01:41 UTC

Received: from ietf.org by ietf.org id aa01829; 10 Sep 96 21:41 EDT
Received: from cnri by ietf.org id aa01825; 10 Sep 96 21:41 EDT
Received: from list.cren.net by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa17899; 10 Sep 96 21:41 EDT
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by list.cren.net (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id VAA27758; Tue, 10 Sep 1996 21:10:12 -0400
Received: from bbmail1.unisys.com (192-63-2005.unisys.com [192.63.200.5]) by list.cren.net (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id VAA27746 for <ietf-smtp@list.cren.net>; Tue, 10 Sep 1996 21:10:07 -0400
Received: from mvdns1.mv.unisys.com (mvdns1.mv.unisys.com [192.59.253.100]) by bbmail1.unisys.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id BAA12915; Wed, 11 Sep 1996 01:09:35 GMT
Received: from MPA15AB.MV.UNISYS.COM by mvdns1.mv.unisys.com (4.1/SMI-4.1-1.8) id AA17667; Wed, 11 Sep 96 01:10:34 GMT
Message-Id: <ELMU0925ECE2B0@MPA15AB>
Date: Tue, 10 Sep 1996 18:09:26 -0700 (PDT) (Wed, 11 Sep 1996 01:09 UT)
X-Orig-Sender: owner-ietf-smtp@list.cren.net
Precedence: bulk
Sender: ietf-archive-request@ietf.org
From: "Randall C. Gellens" <RANDY@mpa15ab.mv.unisys.com>
To: Einar Stefferud <Stef%nma.com@mvdns1.mv.unisys.com>
Cc: smtp list <ietf-smtp%list.cren.net@mvdns1.mv.unisys.com>
Subject: Re: header-munging
In-Reply-To: Your message of "09 Sep 1996 15:54:28 -0700"
References: <5549.842309668@odin.nma.com>
X-Listprocessor-Version: 8.0 -- ListProcessor(tm) by CREN

Einar Stefferud makes some very good points, but I think it would be
helpful to consider that in addition to technical needs for altering
messages (incomplete or incorrect RFC822), there may be political/policy
needs.  For example, expansion of CNAMEs might depend on local needs
(Fu.Bar might be expanded to Fu.Bar.Gork.Com, while www.Gork.Com and
ftp.Gork.Com would not be expanded to mail.Gork.Com), and local parts
might be replaced with aliases which do not expose login names.

I think it might be much easier to consolidate these policy rules into
one SMTP server, in which case allowing both RELAY and SUBMIT on the
SMTP port would be good.

There is also the question of if it is easier to migrate today's
situation (in which various SMTP servers always modify messages in
violation of the letter of SMTP) using a new port number or an ESMTP
keyword.

The I-D draft-gellens-submit-01.txt proposes an ESMTP keyword to specify
RELAY or SUBMIT, and also suggests an optional additional port.

--
|Randall Gellens             |                    randy@mv.unisys.com|
|(714) 380-6350              | fax (714)597-8053 can add ,,,,,,,,6350|
|Opinions are personal;  facts are suspect;   I speak only for myself|

v2.8.7 | Report a Bug | By Email