On Sat 14/Dec/2019 23:27:52 +0100 Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
I haven't seen an I-D containing that proposal yet whether
from you, from the members of the IETF leadership who decided
that address literals be rejected, or from anyone else.
Well, you're working on 5321bis, would you be willing to add
text that states that use of address literals by relays is
now strongly discouraged, because they are not infrequently
rejected by the receiving SMTP server?
I don't know how good a tactic it is to reject address literals. Its rationale
makes little sense. How about a response like this:
550 5.7.1 <[A.B.C.D]> Please write "foo.example" instead of "[A.B.C.D]"
Too tutorial?
I would support such text, it represents operational reality.
It could go in "operational considerations".
If we reject [A.B.C.D], why don't we also reject foo.example?
The reason why SMTP requires to accept such stuff, AFAIUI, is to allow a broken
server to still be able to do its job. Is it so? Compare that to, e.g., DANE,
where a certificate error can shut a server up.
Best
Ale
--
_______________________________________________
ietf-smtp mailing list
ietf-smtp(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-smtp