Good to know.
thanks
john
--On Thursday, July 12, 2018 16:44 -0400 John R Levine
<johnl(_at_)taugh(_dot_)com> wrote:
On Thu, 12 Jul 2018, John C Klensin wrote:
And, of course, if we propose to modify 5321 to allow lighter
weight review, someone is likely to ask for a careful review
of what "with" is actually used for now (as distinct from
whatever was assumed in 2008 or even in 1982 (it might even
be me). If it has fallen into disuse ...
No problem there, it's quite useful. MTAs reliably put ESMTP
or ESMTPS or ESMTPSA in the WITH clause so you can tell
whether a hop used TLS or was authenticated. When explaining
to people that yes, they really did send the spam I complained
about, WITH ESMTPSA is a smoking gun to tell them that they
have a compromised user account.
I see a trickle of WITH UTF8SMTPS tellimg me about EAI flagged
mail.
Gmail puts WITH HTTP on messages coming from webmail which is
wrong but fairly benign.
Microsoft of course gets it wrong, viz. these headers in a
recent message
Received: from FLLSPAC.flls.org (10.1.1.11) by
exchange.flls.org (10.1.1.28)
with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.3.399.0; Wed, 11 Jul 2018
13:01:47 -0400
Received: from FLLSPRO ([10.1.1.10]) by FLLSPAC.flls.org with
Microsoft
SMTPSVC(8.5.9600.16384); Wed, 11 Jul 2018 13:01:47
-0400
Regards,
John Levine, johnl(_at_)taugh(_dot_)com, Taughannock Networks,
Trumansburg NY
Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail.
https://jl.ly
_______________________________________________
ietf-smtp mailing list
ietf-smtp(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-smtp