Hector Santos wrote:
[...something apparently mentioning me...]
Hi, I'm not sure what your rant means, but I hope it's 100% clear
that I do NOT support to move 2821bis more or less "as is" to DS.
I do NOT support its underlying "first priority is try to deliver"
assumption at the border MX, I do NOT support to finalize 2821bis
outside of a proper WG, and I do NOT subscribe to effronteries as
published in <http://article.gmane.org/gmane.ietf.lemonade/199>
But on that firm ground it's IMO a good idea to fix known errors
in 2821bis, and the "one dot" rule fascinates me since I've found
it. You might consider it as irelevant nonsense, but things get
more interesting if implementors try to understand what RFC 4408
chapter 4.8 <http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4408#section-4.8> or
the <path-identity> in chapter 3.1.5 of the NetNews RFC actually
mean.
We've already established that there are no "trailing dots" in
(2)822 up to 2822upd-00. OTOH (2)822 in theory supports TLDs.
If you're not interested in that issue just ignore it, obviously
John is trying to get it right. I vaguely recall an I-D where
TLD operators complained about bogus queries, and I think that
could be related to HELO checks for crap like "HELO oemcomputer".
And at that point it might also interest you, AFAIK you support
strict syntax checks in ESMTP, including but not limited to EHLO.
Frank