Re: [yam] deployment of 8BITMIME?
Ned Freed <ned.freed@mrochek.com> Mon, 17 August 2009 05:35 UTC
Return-Path: <ned.freed@mrochek.com>
X-Original-To: yam@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: yam@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4D3A03A6931 for <yam@core3.amsl.com>; Sun, 16 Aug 2009 22:35:40 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.378
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.378 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.221, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id aiQPDSHlUuMp for <yam@core3.amsl.com>; Sun, 16 Aug 2009 22:35:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mauve.mrochek.com (mauve.mrochek.com [66.59.230.40]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 89BF03A68C7 for <yam@ietf.org>; Sun, 16 Aug 2009 22:35:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from dkim-sign.mauve.mrochek.com by mauve.mrochek.com (PMDF V6.1-1 #35243) id <01NCLUKUHZDS008BO2@mauve.mrochek.com> for yam@ietf.org; Sun, 16 Aug 2009 22:35:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mauve.mrochek.com by mauve.mrochek.com (PMDF V6.1-1 #35243) id <01NCJVC7XWPS001ML6@mauve.mrochek.com>; Sun, 16 Aug 2009 22:35:38 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Sun, 16 Aug 2009 22:21:58 -0700
From: Ned Freed <ned.freed@mrochek.com>
In-reply-to: "Your message dated Sun, 16 Aug 2009 17:50:40 -0400" <4A887F30.90101@att.com>
To: Tony Hansen <tony@att.com>
Message-id: <01NCLUKSW5X0001ML6@mauve.mrochek.com>
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; Format="flowed"
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
References: <4A887F30.90101@att.com>
Cc: Yet Another Mail Working Group <yam@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [yam] deployment of 8BITMIME?
X-BeenThere: yam@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Yet Another Mail working group discussion list <yam.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/yam>, <mailto:yam-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/yam>
List-Post: <mailto:yam@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:yam-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/yam>, <mailto:yam-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2009 05:35:40 -0000
Process Software's PMDF has supported 8BITMIME ever since the specification was first released. Sun's Messaging Server product is derived from PMDF, and has supported 8BITMIME from it's inception. This MTA is used by many large ISPs around the world. As for interop problem - really interesting question. We've implemented most of the SMTP extensions that have been standardized, and most of them have had some hiccups along the way. With ESMTP itself it was the hang up on bad command thing, with SIZE it was not getting some error cases right, with PIPELINING it was broken middleboxes, with NOTARY it was misunderstandings about parameter encodings, and with CHUNKING it was missed corer cases. But 8BITMIME? I can think of a single interop problem it has caused. (Mind you, it's solved lots of such problems, but that's not relevant here.) This is probably largely due to 8BITMIME being a parameterless announcement that in practice introduces no new error states and doesn't alter the dialgue in any significant way. But regardlless of cause, I'd have to rank this as the least problematic extension I've ever implemented and seen deployed. Ned
- [yam] deployment of 8BITMIME? Tony Hansen
- Re: [yam] deployment of 8BITMIME? John C Klensin
- Re: [yam] deployment of 8BITMIME? Ned Freed
- Re: [yam] deployment of 8BITMIME? John Levine
- Re: [yam] deployment of 8BITMIME? Dave CROCKER
- Re: [yam] deployment of 8BITMIME? Alexey Melnikov