Re: Less is more
2004-04-27 08:21:10
On Tue, 27 Apr 2004 23:30:47 +1000, Brett Watson
<famous-mail-ng2(_at_)nutters(_dot_)org> wrote:
On Tue, 27 Apr 2004 22:10, Frode Gill wrote:
One of my hopes for mail-ng is that it will be easy
to implement, and not be forgiving about bad implementations.
The usual principle is "Postel's Robustness Principle", which states
that an endpoint should be strict in what it sends, but liberal in what
it accepts.
Exactly. And it seems like you understand my point in why this is not a
good idea for mail-ng... Personally, I would be glad if the mail-ng server
would be instructed to send non-conforming messages to /dev/null!
* Use an easily parsed timestamp (my advise: 64-bit number representing
timestamp and offset from UTC)
I applaud the general principle of "easily parsed timestamp", but
there's an enormous can of worms waiting to be opened if you want to
discuss this in any detail.
Of course. This is why I give advices, not final sollutions :-)
If we need an explisit timestamp or not is another question, but please
don't let us settle for anything like the RFC822 Date-format, and all the
interesting representations it has gotten in various mail clients, if we
really do need one.
* Use one and only one charset (my advise: utf-8)
Does anyone see any major drawback in using UTF-8 only?
[snip]
This need not preclude other charsets from being carried in mail, but
they would be treated as opaque binary data by the mail protocol.
I don't see any drawbacks in why it couldn't be the one and only charset.
[Full stop].
* Use an easily implemented envelope (my advise: xml or xml-lookalike,
with data-size attribute for a scheme identical to IMAP4 literals to
prevent a need for escaping)
Discussion of XML is premature until we have some idea what data we need
to transfer at particular moments. XML is good for certain types of
structured data, but there may be better approaches for very lightweight
messages or heavily binary-oriented messages.
...which is why I added xml-lookalike. My point is that it will be much
easier to implement an xml kind of format rather than a MIME one, and I
want to make sure implementing mail-ng according to spec will be as
trivial as possible, without putting in too many restrictions.
I would like to have a header specifying the jurisdiction the
email is sent by.
Can you propose a means whereby the veracity of that header can be
checked? What's to stop a sender from lying?
I expect mail-ng to be digitally signed and encrypted, and not as easily
forged as RFC822-messages. I also expect mail-ng messages to be legally
binding. But even if the sender lies, he would have to choose one
jurisdiction and would be hold liable according to that one. If sender
choses a very liberal jurisdiction, the recipient will most likely block
this message as it exceedes the local one. Basically, all I want is some
way for people to don't risk receiving messages that would be illegal in
their local domain, and right now blocking all non-whitelisted messages
sent from America is a quite daunting task. The sollution could be
something very different than my suggestion, but we have a problem with
the current protocol, and it should be resolved in the next.
How useful will it really be, relative to an independent third party
opinion, like "blackholes.us"?
A local backholes.us-list would need to be updated very often, and with no
local list we would need to have a lookup - in which we would get all the
problems we have with DNS-servers nowadays (TLDs, anyone?). It might be
one sollution, but I still think it will be more efficient, and easier to
make legally binding, if this info is embedded into the protocol.
--
Frode Gill
|
|