John C Klensin wrote:
Kari (2007-04-20): "for" clause on Received: header field
As far as Pete and I are concerned, this has been resolved
by further stripping the Received line syntax from 2822.
Okay, I had Kari's article still on "read again". and didn't
look if 2821upd already did something with this issue.
This note is a confusion of issues. If you want an issue number
assigned to one or more of the issues in it, post separate notes
with meaningful subject lines.
The subject line was General-Address-Literal, I try it again.
Here's my "implementation and interoperability test" result:
using SPAMVIR.DE.CLARA.NET for xyzzy.claranet.de
20070430 06:50:34 TCP connection with SPAMVIR.DE.CLARA.NET:25
50:34.14 220 Claranet Germany Mail Service
50:34.14 ehlo x2c( '5B1B5C5B0315181A5D' )
50:34.26 501 Syntactically invalid EHLO argument(s)
50:34.39 221 spamvir07.de.clara.net closing connection
I've edited the log because it's otherwise hard to send in a
mail, the x2c( '5B1B5C5B0315181A5D' ) stands for what I sent:
"[" ESC "\[" ETX NAK CAN SUB "]"
That's a General-Address-Literal as specified in 2821bis-03
if I didn't screw up. The tested mail server didn't like it.
Your backup MX also doesn't like it (501). Hector's MX does
not like it (501). How many do we need to declare NO-WS-CTL
as neither implemented nor a good idea ?
Beyond that, a decision on this is up to Tony
Tony's MX at messagelabs accepts the EHLO, but doesn't like
RCPT TO:<postmaster> - I got a "544 No @ in address (#5.1.3)"
if interoperability reports (which are not part of _my_
issue list) indicate that the syntax for IPv6 literals is
not supported by at least two independent implementations,
that syntax can be removed.
We're not talking about exactly the same thing, the "general
address literal" isn't for IPv6, it's for a 3986 "IPvFuture".
I'd also love to adopt the IPv6 syntax from RFC 3986, with or
without tag, but that would be a separate issue, and of course
we wouldn't break what works only for "aesthetical" reasons.