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.
Keith
On Apr 15, 2011, at 1:58 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
-----Original Message-----
From: Keith Moore [mailto:moore(_at_)network-heretics(_dot_)com]
Sent: Friday, April 15, 2011 10:49 AM
To: dcrocker(_at_)bbiw(_dot_)net
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.