[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [apps-discuss] Comments on Malformed Message BCP draft
Well, I'm all for having submission servers (listening to port 587, requiring authentication, etc.) check for *822/MIME syntax errors, and correct obvious flaws in the message content. Though I still think that sometimes it's better if they bounce those messages, so that users can know that their MUAs are broken. Of course there will be pressure on ISPs to support messages generated by broken MUAs.
Accepting mail submissions on port 25 is something that should have been phased out 10 years ago.
On Apr 15, 2011, at 1:58 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Keith Moore [mailto:moore@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
>> Sent: Friday, April 15, 2011 10:49 AM
>> To: dcrocker@xxxxxxxx
>> Cc: Dave Cridland; ietf-822; General discussion of application-layer protocols; Murray S. Kucherawy
>> Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] Comments on Malformed Message BCP draft
>> I do think there's room for some sort of "if you must do this bad
>> thing, please do it this way" document series from IETF.
>> However, I don't think that would be applicable to having third party
>> mail relays repair malformed messages. I think that's no longer "best
>> way to do something that has the potential to do harm" and closer to
>> "how to make a bad situation worse".
>> Of course, the devil is in the details.
> I don't think this work is targeted at intermediaries. In fact, I'd be completely fine with expressly saying it's meant to address processing at ingress MTAs only.