ietf-smtp
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: "proper" handling of BCC

2012-03-01 08:53:44

Ned Freed <ned(_dot_)freed(_at_)mrochek(_dot_)com> wrote:

http://www-uxsup.csx.cam.ac.uk/~fanf2/hermes/doc/qsmtp/draft-fanf-smtp-rcpthdr.html

As you might expect, I have a *lot* of problems with this approach.

I should probably say that this isn't a very serious proposal, since it
doesn't actually solve any real-world problems, and it prevents the MUA
from using SMTP extensions that require RCPT parameters. It's more of a
what-if about where the boundaries might be drawn between MUA / MSA / MTA.

It also requires parsing headers and extracting addresses from them, something
I'd prefer to avoid and which other approaches do not require.

MSAs should probably be doing this anyway, to avoid propagating malformed
messages.

But the biggest problem is the approach to consuming Resent-* fields, in
particular its dependency on header ordering as well as requiring the presence
of Received: field separators. This is an incredibly fragile way to do it.

In that part I was essentially trying to be explicit about what is already
implied by the existing specifications (822 and 2822) and running code.
This logic has to exist to support things like the `sendmail -t` command,
and in the MUA so that it can display messages correctly (though it can
probably avoid the complexity when sending).

Tony.
-- 
f.anthony.n.finch  <dot(_at_)dotat(_dot_)at>  http://dotat.at/
Forties, Cromarty, Forth, Tyne, Dogger: Southwest, but cyclonic at first in
Cromarty, veering north or northeast, veering east or southeast later, 4 or 5,
increasing 6 at times in Forties and Cromarty. Slight, occasionally moderate
in Forties and Cromarty. Occasional rain. Moderate or good, occasionally poor.

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>