Eliot Lear wrote:
I now understand what you mean by outsourced.
Sorry if that was unclear, I meant "errata not maintained by
the RFC editor".
Most of these comments are truly editorial in nature, but
that happens with FULL standards as well.
Agree, but while it's no full standard it would be integrated,
the differences between 4409 and 2476 (or 4234 and 2234) are
also mainly editorial.
For 4422 they stayed at PS, maybe they considered the changes
as too substantial. 2396 and 3986 on the other hand were
promoted on standards track, although the ABNF was rewritten
from scratch twice. Maybe ABNF changes are considered as
irrelevant. One obscure <toplablel> killed, good riddance.
[2821]
All of those are typos that people can work around without
great difficulty.
Yes, but at some point in time I hope we nail this <toplabel>
issue. To some degree 3696 already does this, but it's "only"
prose, it doesn't offer "updates 1123 2.1 and 1034", and it
should be a BCP or on standards track.
There are many instances when an MTA can and should accept
mail when it is not known to be deliverable. The most
obvious example is when it is acting as an MSA.
ACK, when it knows that MAIL FROM and originator are related,
e.g. an MSA implementing 4409 6.1, it can accept the mail for
forward or delivery.
It is certainly the case for nearly every mail I send or
receive.
For the latter you're apparently behind a good spam filter and
never see the 84% spam. Insert your favourite number, I don't
insist on 84%. I also don't insist on 11% misdirected bounces.
My personal inbox statistics would be more like 98 +1 +1%, but
that's skewed by several factors, almost no mailing lists, no
identified worms, most phishes only arriving as "we've deleted
something" info, and SPF.
Details for the SMTP list, 2821 can't be promoted on standards
track as is. We've got a full standard working in theory, but
not more used as designed, a PS not working as designed, but
used almost everywhere, and an experiment fixing it for those
who want it (in essence the least common denominator of the
STD and the PS, offering hints when accepting mail from unknown
strangers should work as in the "good old times" before spam).
Mailing lists SHOULD modify the mail from
Yes, 1123 5.3.6(b) and other 5.3.x are fine, only 5.3.6(a)
doesn't work as expected without source routes. Apparently
the spammers needed some years to figure this out, it wasn't
as bad as today when 2821 was published. But the whole spam
problem isn't as old as RFC 1123, when did this plague start,
199x in Usenet ?
Frank
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf