Re: RFCs 5321 and 5322 published
Andrzej Kukula wrote: On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 18:29, mouss [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: FYI, RFCs 5321 and 5322 obsolete 2821 and 2822 (respectively). Again there's no mention of Delivered-To header for loop detection. loop detection is not part of smtp. Did you spot anything useful there? This is not the place to discuss the standards.
Re: RFCs 5321 and 5322 published
On 10/2/08, mouss [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Andrzej Kukula wrote: On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 18:29, mouss [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: FYI, RFCs 5321 and 5322 obsolete 2821 and 2822 (respectively). Again there's no mention of Delivered-To header for loop detection. loop detection is not part of smtp. Did you spot anything useful there? This is not the place to discuss the standards. Delivered to could be mentioned by the RFC, as well as Apparently-to is mentioned as should not be used. -- Reinaldo de Carvalho http://korreio.sf.net http://python-cyrus.sf.net
Re: RFCs 5321 and 5322 published
mouss: Andrzej Kukula wrote: On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 18:29, mouss [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: FYI, RFCs 5321 and 5322 obsolete 2821 and 2822 (respectively). Again there's no mention of Delivered-To header for loop detection. loop detection is not part of smtp. Did you spot anything useful there? This is not the place to discuss the standards. But it is OK to talk about changes (with respect to earlier RFCs) that affect Postfix use or development. Wietse
Re: RFCs 5321 and 5322 published
On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 1:51 PM, Victor Duchovni [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, Oct 02, 2008 at 01:27:46PM -0300, Reinaldo de Carvalho wrote: Delivered to could be mentioned by the RFC, as well as No reason to, it has no end-to-end semantics. The only valid consumer of Delivered-To is the system that added it. The header could be: X-Loop-COM-EXAMPLE: date hmac-sha1(secret, date+address) and would work just as well (or perhaps better) for loop detection. The point is that RFCs don't need to cover purely local issues. -- Viktor. Don't need but could be. The standards *could be suggest* something about loop detection. -- Reinaldo de Carvalho http://korreio.sf.net http://python-cyrus.sf.net
Re: RFCs 5321 and 5322 published
Reinaldo de Carvalho wrote: Don't need but could be. The standards *could be suggest* something about loop detection. only if you can get consensus, which is much harder than you might think. while almost everybody now agrees that putting the envelope recipient in a header (except for mail delivered to a single recipient) was a borked idea, there is no consensus about loop detection. (or if you prefer, Apparently-To is ok, but given that it has already been used the wrong way, it is easier to obsolete it rather than to give 100 lines explaining how/when/why to [not] use it). add to this that getting consensus on smtp related drafts/rfcs is a lot harder than it should. not only because the spam and malware problem makes some people think in transient solutions terms, but also because smtp has been implemented since long, and a lot of people have different ideas of what is best to do. as a result, I don't expect changes (other than clarifications or esmtp extensions) in the smtp specs in the short future.
