Re: [ietf-smtp] broken signatures, was Curious
2020-07-21 20:31:56
On 7/21/2020 1:19 PM, John Levine wrote:
The amount of bandwidth used by e-mail is a rounding error of the
Internet's total, which is mostly video these dayts, and the amount
used by broken headers is a rounding error on that rounding error.
Folks,
My understanding is that the goal of the emailcore work is to do the
minimum necessary to enable promoting the core email specifications to
full standard.
Each of us has a worthy list of wonderful enhancements, cleanups, and
the like, that we would love to see pursued for email. None of them is
likely to be within scope for this round of effort.
To the extent that someone thinks otherwise, consider that each item
added to the task list delays completion of this round of effort, and
possibly for quite awhile.
So, as fascinating as this thread has been, unless someone can explain
how it is essential to the work of the emailcore effort, I'll ask why it
is worth taking up this much list energy? Absent compelling
justification, is there a chance people could stop feeding this thread?
As an aside: X- was deprecated. It's not illegal, but it's no longer a
formal construct. I thought it quite a clever suggestion, when we were
doing RFC 822 -- though I don't remember who suggested it -- but as with
many good suggestions, it had downsides we hadn't anticipated.
Also, as for cleanup of email header fields in transit, I'm pretty sure
that it is fully out of scope for SMTP, IMAP, Mail Format and any other
emailcore work. It certainly should be, since it isn't causing actual
operational problems.
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
_______________________________________________
ietf-smtp mailing list
ietf-smtp(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-smtp
<Prev in Thread] |
Current Thread |
[Next in Thread>
|
- Re: [ietf-smtp] broken signatures, was Curious, (continued)
- Re: [ietf-smtp] broken signatures, was Curious, Michael Richardson
- Re: [ietf-smtp] broken signatures, was Curious, Hector Santos
- Re: [ietf-smtp] broken signatures, was Curious, Alessandro Vesely
- Re: [ietf-smtp] broken signatures, was Curious, John Levine
- Re: [ietf-smtp] broken signatures, was Curious, Michael Richardson
- Re: [ietf-smtp] broken signatures, was Curious, John R Levine
- Re: [ietf-smtp] broken signatures, was Curious, John R Levine
- Re: [ietf-smtp] broken signatures, was Curious, Hector Santos
- Re: [ietf-smtp] broken signatures, was Curious, John C Klensin
- Re: [ietf-smtp] broken signatures, was Curious, John R Levine
- Re: [ietf-smtp] broken signatures, was Curious,
Dave Crocker <=
- Re: [ietf-smtp] broken signatures, was Curious, John C Klensin
- Re: [ietf-smtp] broken signatures, was Curious, Dave Crocker
- Re: [ietf-smtp] broken signatures, was Curious, Pete Resnick
- Re: [ietf-smtp] broken signatures, was Curious, Dave Crocker
- Re: [ietf-smtp] broken signatures, was Curious, Pete Resnick
- Re: [ietf-smtp] Curious, with this now being associated to emailcore, should list name change?, Pete Resnick
- Re: [ietf-smtp] Curious, with this now being associated to emailcore, should list name change?, Pete Resnick
- Re: [ietf-smtp] Curious, with this now being associated to emailcore, should list name change?, John C Klensin
- Re: [ietf-smtp] Curious, with this now being associated to emailcore, should list name change?, Pete Resnick
- Re: [ietf-smtp] Curious, with this now being associated to emailcore, should list name change?, Keith Moore
|
|
|