[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ietf-smtp] Email standard revision, was address maximum length

2019-11-30 13:08:04

--On Saturday, 30 November, 2019 09:09 -0800 Dave Crocker
<dhc(_at_)dcrocker(_dot_)net> wrote:

On 11/29/2019 3:12 PM, John C Klensin wrote:
Even the "From: rewriting" issue is
a gatewaying issue, not a message format issue per se.
That is less clear.  It fits into the gray area that has
existed for years about just exactly what a mailing list
exploder / redistribution system really is.

So you want to move RFC 5598 to historic?


While, as you know, I've never been a huge fan of parts of 5598,
no I don't think moving it to historic would be helpful.  I do
think that things have gotten more complicated (or at least
different) in the decade since it was published.   I also note
that it, particularly its Section 5.3, appears to say that 

* all mailing list redistribution activity occurs at MUA level
(that is inconsistent with 5321, which came earlier and which
5598 does not claim to update or otherwise supercede) 

* RFC5322.From: should remain as set by the original author
(inconsistent with current practice on many lists and part of
where this thread started) 

IMO, the inconsistencies between the first bullet and 5321 and
between the second and tampering with "From:" to work around the
difficulties between DMARC and mailing lists are evidence of
precisely what I described as a gray area.  I don't have an
opinion at the moment as to whether 5598 should be revised (or,
in principle, retired) as part of whatever the ADs think should
be addressed in a 2019/2020 email review and update.   Forming
such an opinion would require me to study it much more carefully
(I looked at it today for the first time in years) as well as
understanding what we actually intend to do with 5321 and 5322.


ietf-smtp mailing list

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