Good to know.
--On Thursday, July 12, 2018 16:44 -0400 John R Levine
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
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
Received: from FLLSPAC.flls.org (10.1.1.11) by
with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.3.399.0; Wed, 11 Jul 2018
Received: from FLLSPRO ([10.1.1.10]) by FLLSPAC.flls.org with
SMTPSVC(8.5.9600.16384); Wed, 11 Jul 2018 13:01:47
John Levine, johnl(_at_)taugh(_dot_)com, Taughannock Networks,
Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail.
ietf-smtp mailing list