Subject: Comments Re: 821bis, draft proto-09

From: [email-masked] (Lee Thompson)
Date: Tue, 01 Dec 1998 18:17:38 GMT

Section 3.3:

It is still very unclear if the <>'s in reverse-path are required and here's
why:

>The first step in the procedure is the MAIL command.

>    MAIL <SP> FROM:<reverse-path> [ <SP> <mail-parameters> ] <CRLF>

You're using <>'s to denote special sequences such as spaces and CR/LFs.  In
these cases the <>'s are omitted.   So going by this context, this line
'translates' as: "MAIL FROM:user@domain SIZE=4944\r\n".  This should be made
more clear in the text.  (Section 6.1 and Appendix D have better examples of
the MAIL FROM command, so perhaps even a 'see Section X.X.X for examples'
would be helpful.)

The description for RCPT has the same issue.

Implementation Note:

Many mail clients are not using the <'s and some include a <SP> after MAIL
FROM:.  I believe while mail servers SHOULD use the recommended syntax, they
should also allow the variants.    Speaking as a commercial developer,
implementations that are 100% standard don't mean much if the customer's
client software can't talk to the server properly.

Section 3.5.3:

I'd like to bring up the current practice of using VRFY to simply verify the
syntax of an email address.  MANY CGI scripts are currently using this.   The
problem with 'tightening' this up in SMTP server implementation is existing
working conditions work; and a newer implementation will not.   I realize
there is considerable interest in keeping standards tight; but the cat's
already out of the bag.

_
Lee Thompson                       [email-masked]
Seattle Lab Inc.           http://www.seattlelab.com
Product Manager

---

From: Antony Bowesman <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 02 Dec 1998 07:44:24 +0900

> there is considerable interest in keeping standards tight; but the cat's

First check out the archives for dates 12/Aug->25/Aug.  There was a
large discussion on this.

Rgds
-- 
Antony Bowesman
[email-masked]

---

From: "D. J. Bernstein" <[email-masked]>
Date: 2 Dec 1998 02:16:01 -0000

As far as I can see, there are only two fixes in this draft:

   * Clients are no longer required to send EHLO.
   * 571 has been eliminated.

Please consider this message to be a renewal of all my other objections.

The editor has also created a new problem: any message ``which is not
required by a standards-track RFC to have a null-reverse path'' now
``SHOULD be sent with with a valid, non-null reverse path.'' I wish the
editor would stop screwing around with areas beyond his experience.

Note that this draft---as received by koobera's SMTP server, at least---
was missing several hundred lines in the middle, so the editor may have
made other changes that I have not yet had a chance to review.

---Dan

---

From: "D. J. Bernstein" <[email-masked]>
Date: 2 Dec 1998 02:22:43 -0000

Lee Thompson writes:
> It is still very unclear if the <>'s in reverse-path are required

It is clear in smtpupd-08 that the brackets are required:

   Reverse-path = Path
   Forward-path = Path
   Path = "<" [ A-d-l ":" ] Mailbox ">"

> client software can't talk to the server properly.

Indeed. As stated in http://pobox.com/~djb/proto/smtp/address.html:

   Beware that some clients (e.g., Neologic SMTPD, Worldgroup SMTP)
   incorrectly include one or more spaces before each encoded address:
   
     RCPT TO: <[email-masked]>   (WRONG)
     
   Some clients (e.g., Windows CE) fail to enclose addresses in brackets:
   
     RCPT TO: [email-masked]     (WRONG)

   In some cases a client will omit the domain:

     RCPT TO:<root>
   
> working conditions work; and a newer implementation will not.

The server responds 252 to any VRFY attempt. The client treats 252 the
same way as 250: allow the address. What's the problem?

---Dan

---

From: Paul Hoffman / IMC <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 03 Dec 1998 10:08:17 -0800

At 11:43 AM 11/29/98 -0500, John C Klensin wrote:
>DRUMS WG...
>
>Due to the press of other work and various emergencies, I missed
>the I-D submission deadline and apologize for this.  After a
>discussion with Chris, I'm posting proto- draft 9 with this note
>so everyone has a chance to review it prior to Orlando.

I find it quite distressing that Dan was the only person to have noticed
that the new draft was missing a large hunk of text from the middle (I have
verified that my copy was also missing the text). It indicates that folks
here are not reading the new drafts as they come out.

Do we just not care any more? If so, what should we do about this?

John: please consider sending out another (complete) copy, or posting a
copy to a Web site somewhere where those of us who want to download the
whole thing can do so.

--Paul Hoffman, Director
--Internet Mail Consortium

---

From: "Bart Schaefer" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 3 Dec 1998 10:39:49 -0800

On Dec 3, 10:08am, Paul Hoffman / IMC wrote:
} Subject: Re: 821bis, draft proto-09
}
} I find it quite distressing that Dan was the only person to have noticed
} that the new draft was missing a large hunk of text from the middle (I have
} verified that my copy was also missing the text). It indicates that folks
} here are not reading the new drafts as they come out.

I read the changes section and didn't see anything I seriously disagreed
with.  I trust John a bit more than Dan does to not be sneaking things in
without telling us.

-- 
Bart Schaefer                                 Brass Lantern Enterprises
http://www.well.com/user/barts              http://www.brasslantern.com

---

From: John Beck <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 04 Dec 1998 10:59:20 -0800

klensin> ... I'm posting proto- draft 9 with this note so everyone has
klensin> a chance to review it prior to Orlando.

djb> Note that this draft ... was missing several hundred lines in the
djb> middle ...

phoffman> I find it quite distressing that Dan was the only person to have
phoffman> noticed that the new draft was missing a large hunk of text from
phoffman> the middle ...  It indicates that folks here are not reading the
phoffman> new drafts as they come out.

Not quite: it indicates that people have *not yet* read this new draft
in full.  I was just about to print it out to review on the plane, and
confirmed Dan's observation (I checked the archive too).  The sub-section
that I am most interested in is among the missing, so I would have noticed
it then.

schaefer> I read the changes section and didn't see anything I seriously
schaefer> disagreed with.

There is that too.  I didn't see anything objectionable either.  But I also
didn't see the change I was looking for (3.10.2: "... each of the expanded
addresses in turn." -> "... all of the expanded addresses."), which was
the wording that a bunch of us word-smithed in Chicago the day after the
meeting, as per the minutes:

	* There was discussion about whether the sender's address may or may
	  not be deleted from an expanded address list.  Consensus is that
	  expansion MUST be complete, with no deletions.  Existing language
	  is imprecise, and the editor is looking for wording to make it
	  clear.

phoffman> John: please consider sending out another (complete) copy, or
phoffman> posting a copy to a Web site ...

I'll second this.

-- John