From nobody Wed Mar 5 10:20:39 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietf-smtp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietf-smtp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 42F431A0136 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2014 10:20:38 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.999 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id SV2YMbCAAMTW for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2014 10:20:36 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-pb0-x236.google.com (mail-pb0-x236.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c01::236]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CBC741A0129 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2014 10:20:36 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-pb0-f54.google.com with SMTP id ma3so1427235pbc.27 for ; Wed, 05 Mar 2014 10:20:33 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=LtALRIl2zjsW7tkTXNMce48Njc4UDTEksAMwXQ02MqI=; b=k5dpNrWq722wdve1NRWDqgKJMLveS2RC7wxHtTajNcYhMfD/phWDErAOZiVrNUz2Ur 3xPH0ki6u8V1mqpKhYZNYYC0dYaZG1QW9Ctpotw7C/qk4p2NXXZ1DOxZ8Vc9KfNq0Kk5 VlN+jCZm6qBMxxALRFj6DRY9HV4q1YLYPnoFIOeuiucvmNBprmdF3O/LWgV5b4IFCwhQ GNbcPtT3+DyjdrZIv09MZ6Da51xhjWLFo//07nokeMM71+bmiwrgI6H9kxNPz0y0mHYG pghMQ0iw1oMLhq2v8wrTtYOHuuqiLg2cU31V9xqCCG0dmfTrRKLzMhadSlmYdXGzHYzD LqDw== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.66.13.138 with SMTP id h10mr8773345pac.148.1394043633335; Wed, 05 Mar 2014 10:20:33 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.66.220.102 with HTTP; Wed, 5 Mar 2014 10:20:33 -0800 (PST) Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2014 18:20:33 +0000 Message-ID: From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" To: ietf-smtp@ietf.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=bcaec520ee1f91030204f3e0133f Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-smtp/qZN685M0PINqiQGbgHQdbL-URYA Subject: [ietf-smtp] Per-Recipient Data Responses X-BeenThere: ietf-smtp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "Discussion of issues related to Simple Mail Transfer Protocol \(SMTP\) \[RFC 821, RFC 2821, RFC 5321\]" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2014 18:20:38 -0000 --bcaec520ee1f91030204f3e0133f Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 How come this never got adoption? It comes up from time to time in "We really should do this" sorts of discussions, but it doesn't seem like anyone ever took the plunge and it just expired. Is it just that nobody does it because nobody else does it? http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-hall-prdr-00 -MSK --bcaec520ee1f91030204f3e0133f Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

How come this never got adoption?=A0 It comes up from= time to time in "We really should do this" sorts of discussions,= but it doesn't seem like anyone ever took the plunge and it just expir= ed.=A0 Is it just that nobody does it because nobody else does it?

http://tools.= ietf.org/html/draft-hall-prdr-00

-MSK

--bcaec520ee1f91030204f3e0133f-- From ca+envelope@esmtp.org Wed Mar 5 10:56:09 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietf-smtp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietf-smtp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E10E91A0162 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2014 10:56:09 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.447 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.447 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.547] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id KkaF5C3CZRci for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2014 10:56:08 -0800 (PST) Received: from zardoc.esmtp.org (zardoc.esmtp.org [70.36.157.240]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A2B0D1A011E for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2014 10:56:08 -0800 (PST) Received: from x2.esmtp.org (localhost. [127.0.0.1]) by zardoc.esmtp.org (MeTA1-1.0.Alpha21.0) with ESMTPS (TLS=TLSv1/SSLv3, cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384, bits=256, verify=OK) id S0000000000073D4700; Wed, 5 Mar 2014 10:56:05 -0800 Received: (from ca@localhost) by x2.esmtp.org (8.14.6/8.12.10.Beta0/Submit) id s25Iu5dI020022 for ietf-smtp@ietf.org; Wed, 5 Mar 2014 10:56:05 -0800 (PST) Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2014 10:56:05 -0800 From: Claus Assmann To: ietf-smtp@ietf.org Message-ID: <20140305185605.GA20951@x2.esmtp.org> Mail-Followup-To: ietf-smtp@ietf.org References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.22+16 (adf90e5365bc) (2013-10-16) Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-smtp/JEhBYQ7DEdvhi_4TXr9l-vwt41I Subject: Re: [ietf-smtp] Per-Recipient Data Responses X-BeenThere: ietf-smtp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list Reply-To: ietf-smtp@ietf.org List-Id: "Discussion of issues related to Simple Mail Transfer Protocol \(SMTP\) \[RFC 821, RFC 2821, RFC 5321\]" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2014 18:57:31 -0000 On Wed, Mar 05, 2014, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: > How come this never got adoption? It comes up from time to time in "We It has been "adopted": MeTA1 and exim implement it. Maybe someone needs to "push" it through the IETF process? From nobody Wed Mar 5 11:16:05 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietf-smtp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietf-smtp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5E2831A0186 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2014 11:16:01 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.448 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.448 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.547, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id YARhA5gJLWuH for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2014 11:15:58 -0800 (PST) Received: from statler.isode.com (statler.isode.com [62.3.217.254]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 286041A0183 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2014 11:15:57 -0800 (PST) Received: from [10.172.26.139] (gw.kingston.awtg.busi.ask4.co.uk [78.109.179.245]) by statler.isode.com (smtp internal) via TCP with ESMTPA id ; Wed, 5 Mar 2014 19:15:52 +0000 References: <20140305185605.GA20951@x2.esmtp.org> In-Reply-To: <20140305185605.GA20951@x2.esmtp.org> Message-Id: <32C056A9-9A78-4492-8301-9FFDC0BB43BB@isode.com> Cc: "ietf-smtp@ietf.org" X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (11B651) From: Alexey Melnikov Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2014 19:25:42 +0000 To: "ietf-smtp@ietf.org" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-smtp/tR6DQGfqZ2buqPVERvC-KLoQalA Subject: Re: [ietf-smtp] Per-Recipient Data Responses X-BeenThere: ietf-smtp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "Discussion of issues related to Simple Mail Transfer Protocol \(SMTP\) \[RFC 821, RFC 2821, RFC 5321\]" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2014 19:16:01 -0000 > On 5 Mar 2014, at 18:56, Claus Assmann wrote: > >> On Wed, Mar 05, 2014, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: >> How come this never got adoption? It comes up from time to time in "We > > It has been "adopted": MeTA1 and exim implement it. Maybe someone > needs to "push" it through the IETF process? +1 From nobody Wed Mar 5 11:18:13 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietf-smtp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietf-smtp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4FF441A0186 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2014 11:18:09 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.926 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.926 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.547, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id gC2KcUzLjjiB for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2014 11:18:07 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-ie0-x22f.google.com (mail-ie0-x22f.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c03::22f]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7D8CE1A0175 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2014 11:18:07 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-ie0-f175.google.com with SMTP id to1so1508357ieb.6 for ; Wed, 05 Mar 2014 11:18:03 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; bh=L01Ky2szvxD/4LXI8Z7ZimFKlIpnSP/Cowh+aXzOMjE=; b=lD7mxdQvVdNmH2YpiWyQV93ZfSituG91KXDuqYHIkOXrIyBsvdb1mDXBFcrLHrciJ+ ZTo0aXBuN6ovT+a7ZRYn81UmqBY00B59EQiptISKrlXrA/75y9r0feVwXGlX7pgFrUOb +0+YuJe/x9FsJ8oJL8XAQyp0+Wm0rtHzgaKimi03VZmvVHdc8hsxEGYbrcYejs14YqlU l7HsD6ZZ+UjzMpYwV9OUbAnOX4j2c+rsjqq9GjdLQsR1+OHpurFSt4PPY6Awe/Ki5Lsy LY725D57iWm0jhB6H9C1HHPYkP6ELgv3iSk29+x6F6pSBwOlN0wy7mn/nWZ5X59U9brJ WxPw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=L01Ky2szvxD/4LXI8Z7ZimFKlIpnSP/Cowh+aXzOMjE=; b=YeCPEXfsLeR6XcXbCWoZ6bl5kJf8XRpuWqLhamfgkeWoKxEY10m/G7ApEBCIHiIxVf 3aQ/TJR8EFNsVA85pkqw1CMBYwUZuMiaQjitTDQ4ceqBoDQLLOTHdM+GSTeCe6b0OP5P LbfX9ZTcOAfTyATuh0gmRWcMIYZIbJVGG9m/yhO3HZvfVjSnv7cawPJcpB2OGBD9zP1c mijo977CMC70L88D7R99raMA34h0sJtuXniRIbOirNyHd3IH7+e/ABPW2FSPL86u3E++ ueR/hBtlURKwE4/znPH2h7t70J4rLleju04Jsu2CrKTL2qAXbyrGOpA1S4uVoi8iwqpG cCkA== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnFe41DWR7Aj98rMi7k1Z2jHyjxYjHOZd8g4G5HqR9rJyH48wF938Uok4H5ge9q1eyJ/q0US7Cp5E/xfNeZ6oVfsbYSJcGJoyrFQAgSrIjgz6VEfeYcFowAYVHYRHLEdBCwyUDcH/rkFELBggVpunLC9fBIbvkhno4DsafxULEt8IQxRGmXYDf8FknG66VN5AdDFkYG MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.43.90.202 with SMTP id bj10mr6115457icc.48.1394047083734; Wed, 05 Mar 2014 11:18:03 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.64.251.132 with HTTP; Wed, 5 Mar 2014 11:18:03 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <20140305185605.GA20951@x2.esmtp.org> References: <20140305185605.GA20951@x2.esmtp.org> Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2014 11:18:03 -0800 Message-ID: From: Brandon Long To: ietf-smtp Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-smtp/AjjDqiiUK33cbvgC_2jcIEg5VPg Subject: Re: [ietf-smtp] Per-Recipient Data Responses X-BeenThere: ietf-smtp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "Discussion of issues related to Simple Mail Transfer Protocol \(SMTP\) \[RFC 821, RFC 2821, RFC 5321\]" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2014 19:18:09 -0000 On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 10:56 AM, Claus Assmann wrote: > On Wed, Mar 05, 2014, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: >> How come this never got adoption? It comes up from time to time in "We > > It has been "adopted": MeTA1 and exim implement it. Maybe someone > needs to "push" it through the IETF process? It must not be enabled by default, since I only saw about 5 MXs yesterday that are advertising PRDR. Brandon From nobody Wed Mar 5 11:21:44 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietf-smtp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietf-smtp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E90D61A024F for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2014 11:21:41 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.999 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id sLUsqk1NZe5D for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2014 11:21:39 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-pa0-x229.google.com (mail-pa0-x229.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c03::229]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2E5481A0183 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2014 11:21:32 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-pa0-f41.google.com with SMTP id fa1so1520464pad.28 for ; Wed, 05 Mar 2014 11:21:28 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=yWBAm7rtP16fOHoLlVMudagIj0HQtHrT74ODs32maWA=; b=MeRz4Muhwe0ItKZnp+DZAvsF3MEO35wSmyz924fhE3okCenrYHkyAfBrYuyb+4i0AB /5y36I8RcceTumoZsp0JIw1xX5sq20//Xk7rHmGMW/nSDm42nQKf+2jXMPmi8kz/TffB 0WIW0KpP9WVuI4ankfrP17+rEfU1cEwwag058pU8OH2k25QH7EsMpr2hWNkIilfxojW7 am1nLIQpz0CjejJzti3DTPp0syxoXPfvW7MGQtyl8rVqZ2WZpHMyKAtbbi9Ov+2SO0QH AKXwdxC1TMmtgfUb4wT0D3TOIGlN73OE9tCw9wO5nq9XoIOR4+hQFurGHyidcRr46mD4 /W7w== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.68.202.8 with SMTP id ke8mr9187115pbc.86.1394047288675; Wed, 05 Mar 2014 11:21:28 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.66.220.102 with HTTP; Wed, 5 Mar 2014 11:21:28 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: <20140305185605.GA20951@x2.esmtp.org> Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2014 19:21:28 +0000 Message-ID: From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" To: Brandon Long Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7b15a69371125f04f3e0edd9 Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-smtp/CmKUQ6rTx7Aur0foonfZf0Mqko0 Cc: ietf-smtp Subject: Re: [ietf-smtp] Per-Recipient Data Responses X-BeenThere: ietf-smtp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "Discussion of issues related to Simple Mail Transfer Protocol \(SMTP\) \[RFC 821, RFC 2821, RFC 5321\]" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2014 19:21:42 -0000 --047d7b15a69371125f04f3e0edd9 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 7:18 PM, Brandon Long wrote: > On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 10:56 AM, Claus Assmann > wrote: > > On Wed, Mar 05, 2014, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: > >> How come this never got adoption? It comes up from time to time in "We > > > > It has been "adopted": MeTA1 and exim implement it. Maybe someone > > needs to "push" it through the IETF process? > > It must not be enabled by default, since I only saw about 5 MXs > yesterday that are advertising PRDR. > Does that mean Google's implemented it, or you just have stats about what gets advertised? -MSK --047d7b15a69371125f04f3e0edd9 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 7:18 PM, Brandon Long <blong@google= .com> wrote:

On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 10:56= AM, Claus Assmann <ietf-smtp@esm= tp.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 05, 2014, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
>> How come this never got adoption? =A0It comes up from time to time= in "We
>
> It has been "adopted": MeTA1 and exim implement it. Maybe so= meone
> needs to "push" it through the IETF process?

It must not be enabled by default, since I only saw about 5 MXs
yesterday that are advertising PRDR.

Does that me= an Google's implemented it, or you just have stats about what gets adve= rtised?

-MSK

--047d7b15a69371125f04f3e0edd9-- From nobody Wed Mar 5 11:26:25 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietf-smtp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietf-smtp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B9B851A0224 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2014 11:26:24 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.7 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.7 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id TgkG9zMqhaVU for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2014 11:26:22 -0800 (PST) Received: from mailout-aegee.scc.kit.edu (mailout-aegee.scc.kit.edu [129.13.185.235]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 903A71A022A for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2014 11:26:22 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtp.aegee.org (aegeepc1.aegee.uni-karlsruhe.de [129.13.131.81]) by scc-mailout-02.scc.kit.edu with esmtp (Exim 4.72 #1) id 1WLHSM-0005ne-1G; Wed, 05 Mar 2014 20:26:18 +0100 Authentication-Results: aegeeserv.aegee.org; auth=pass (PLAIN) smtp.auth=didopalauzov DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.9.0 smtp.aegee.org s25JQIpI017687 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=aegee.org; s=k4096; t=1394047578; i=dkim+MSA-ssl@aegee.org; bh=ccgJ6+EglweWk2acpwcA1NELMrue/dLZKsVAFGf47Lk=; h=Date:From:To:Subject:References:In-Reply-To; b=MKllPNTgPReFrQzqKPuu173nmwZOqQaSVCGepmwondGUlwYJaG/yUJB+0H3Y4XqXF XSBwcDsk69QRLevrBEQOBPEDoxbTp2GSu7OJCYfR0Q0IvyKdkihHL/T8WX8NVQf3LI 8IRwk2ovuv/y2X+/r/RSv40XnNz0l/GSAUgJrLZl1oVM71XJUKVW5tBI9DzwylPZDe zihOyWt1vcQZxZUDw/E4Xe4v5Tf0ipLf6pRA794AukJplxIBwwhDGzjIXblx10wNch oG2UtKk79zFTls9/M6DJr9qgyWf/ScCHBsN8k5YP4sFJYlyfS44IV3PbzACQI24Q8b JIEVQ2D7rn5sKnhi86Am+jnLl3re7h9/SA9cRLsBmgKSOLbawG0o9TgZYfn5gFu20I bmDgOfQDqJnVKXzjgSHVrnM4uOpEXyzsifcynLtGgA2kOTY/vficePucu5I/GFSB7t 7Syzcx1AXqGL/TQp3C1KCqz5Eqg74sk3/I/5/Fs6CdhgrIghBeYrhDPVxqBO4B1BcF oGzruTWUMlrHzTV44lx+8MSi6+ZeiSQ6va1V80rzIjvZ+oAYeFxHp8rmqlF4lTa65g GSl3zrgEi/TmHnio1Rnjg3z1oAlkAXNCA0qaZ+JOGIvxBDHwdqCEzGGTDzoFEnsHnK V5/QWvhMU6xjUueR8shl56ko= Received: from [192.168.0.7] (port-212-202-110-243.static.qsc.de [212.202.110.243]) (authenticated bits=0) by smtp.aegee.org (8.14.8/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s25JQIpI017687 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO) for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2014 19:26:18 GMT Message-ID: <53177A58.5040206@aegee.org> Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2014 20:26:16 +0100 From: =?UTF-8?B?0JTQuNC70Y/QvSDQn9Cw0LvQsNGD0LfQvtCy?= User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.3.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ietf-smtp@ietf.org References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 0.98.1 at aegeeserv X-Virus-Status: Clean Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-smtp/E4F_71mGH5-aOaAj7JHZgaqZK4g Subject: Re: [ietf-smtp] Per-Recipient Data Responses X-BeenThere: ietf-smtp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "Discussion of issues related to Simple Mail Transfer Protocol \(SMTP\) \[RFC 821, RFC 2821, RFC 5321\]" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2014 19:26:25 -0000 Hello, thanks for bringing this issue to our attention. For the receiving MTA side, I have written a tool, that builds on the Milter interface in sendmail/postfix and provides API for other plugins, that can decide per recipient, if s/he wants to receive the message. http://mail.aegee.org/cgit/aegee-milter/ Basically, the module that decides per recipient evaluates Sieve scripts (src/modules/mod_sieve) after RCPT and DATA-DOT and rejects the message. To build the Sieve module, you need either to install the libcyrus_sieve from the development version of cyrus-imap (once you compile the project, you need to install the libcyrus, libcyrus_min and libcyrus_sieve libraries), or libsieve (http://sodabrew.com/libsieve/). The only reason I have not released the software so far, is that it lacks documentation. Some years ago I managed to tweak sendmail to accept the PRDR parameter to the MAIL command and then it acted correctly (to the extend I understood PRDR). Recently I switched my programme from C to C++ and have not tested yet, with the sendmail patches from that time, if the PRDR stuff is running. However, I would be glad if somebody contributes to Sendmail to extend the milter-side/API, so that one can send over it arbitrary responses after data-end and my milter just uses that API instead of me trying to hack sendmail. Next to that, I intend to write documentation for the above programme, so that more people can use it. I would be very happy, if somebody is interested to help me. Per recipient response is very cool, as each recipient in the same mail envelope can have different spam rules and PRDR provides the possibility to only partially reject the message. Also, if the recipient agree, in the rejection message one can write the telephone/fax number of the recipient, so that the sender can still contact the recipient, if was wrongly rejected. Greetings Dilian On 05.03.2014 19:20, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: > How come this never got adoption? It comes up from time to time in "We > really should do this" sorts of discussions, but it doesn't seem like > anyone ever took the plunge and it just expired. Is it just that nobody > does it because nobody else does it? > > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-hall-prdr-00 > > -MSK > From nobody Wed Mar 5 11:26:52 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietf-smtp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietf-smtp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 88D3A1A02F6 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2014 11:26:50 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.926 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.926 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.547, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id DF2HwPENHDhm for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2014 11:26:48 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-ie0-x229.google.com (mail-ie0-x229.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c03::229]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 20F3A1A022A for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2014 11:26:48 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-ie0-f169.google.com with SMTP id to1so1614796ieb.0 for ; Wed, 05 Mar 2014 11:26:44 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=L8rP+L1key5eLxQJU+JhR13OhxVHh5Qzp+uHN2tKKn8=; b=cyBeRtkP9ZI2cmX244lbuxERoJ8aTnZ0MhpiSGym5PuV2R0PtDiKxF2CCVyfqL4H9N P73A784Cwvv8nmAdhE+YLvo7dzdTLSYATjK13BVug7EoyCTZnzTFLUG4mKW0lG33hwf7 3l8Q2towFGxLZqVIdSeRPSbS0Lmt8cfEE0QFMYPt8fWQG6lutDcElCAjVR7Z2e59my5X xHQAGxRpWvBhLdft5GxSSzlN30NODSNlQc3GjxOQ3kiYzSOgUjXvzXyGCSdFr7EhYHI9 eDOCpyWWEnfZ6BEXONaXKtl+pJKkIbJRduLSky7XiZbS/NjIEZLpEn8OwWFugKEyN72h jLmA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=L8rP+L1key5eLxQJU+JhR13OhxVHh5Qzp+uHN2tKKn8=; b=ArKlIb+bvXDlPgfQGXMxtLxWk+OMR9WKMjnDc4q+VMz4kqFkgZGAgeX1ZGcuUmBIFe ig8ey1wRyz7n6yqAjZJw8tfwkDUyi1zVLVmMvoyODUAgwGrAsFb6xdZVDrqSiIgxvK1x biVsO8tbC0/DirBw55syW/rs2rHO1SQurSWQNSpnzktnM9RHrvN3ZrwKGN7ivagXtZfH q8MFkYlK7TcHVmYdr84TPBVIvlpIMI/jrsZizQyMUTEmbg65BYI6ThzMNpgCUqE7koFY pDVcKoAP0wv/OlyHX25axFxqXduaFbrAEL2XXdJgMTAU9zOQI9JqmhOZXXLnL8nr/GmW KdlA== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQlYslcq1eIYQSwyOIWVPIeGsUFHUHT2fo+w0N03Eb2lUFBJbxoiJ16OOcFYudz+Pf7VqRMxJ7Z2+CW1Xl/0fGq5Wj5Ov9rWz8FRY0usx6luIT8TuAx023P0kt7g7q9jhMO8iayPrdWP6NubJEtB1S+2EkWrdVhCrZkSN8NkLOUmE/EQFsXUj24CwZjlldWqPX4R1Opa MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.42.53.10 with SMTP id l10mr6097818icg.33.1394047604448; Wed, 05 Mar 2014 11:26:44 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.64.251.132 with HTTP; Wed, 5 Mar 2014 11:26:44 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: <20140305185605.GA20951@x2.esmtp.org>

Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2014 11:26:44 -0800 Message-ID: From: Brandon Long To: "Murray S. Kucherawy" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-smtp/mj-2uUuKbQj8rocUn_E0A9-PKTQ Cc: ietf-smtp Subject: Re: [ietf-smtp] Per-Recipient Data Responses X-BeenThere: ietf-smtp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "Discussion of issues related to Simple Mail Transfer Protocol \(SMTP\) \[RFC 821, RFC 2821, RFC 5321\]" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2014 19:26:50 -0000 On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 11:21 AM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: > On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 7:18 PM, Brandon Long wrote: >> >> On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 10:56 AM, Claus Assmann >> wrote: >> > On Wed, Mar 05, 2014, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: >> >> How come this never got adoption? It comes up from time to time in "We >> > >> > It has been "adopted": MeTA1 and exim implement it. Maybe someone >> > needs to "push" it through the IETF process? >> >> It must not be enabled by default, since I only saw about 5 MXs >> yesterday that are advertising PRDR. > > > Does that mean Google's implemented it, or you just have stats about what > gets advertised? We just record everything that gets advertised to help us judge what to implement and also for interoperability testing prior to releasing new ones. This one sounds useful, but without wider adoption, would be a hard sell at this point. I realize there's a chicken & egg thing there, of course, but we also have a very limited number of cases where we'd do mixed responses and we have to fall back to bounces today. Brandon From nobody Wed Mar 5 11:33:55 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietf-smtp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietf-smtp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C81321A0251 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2014 11:33:54 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.699 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.699 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id rBBVhubnIn7O for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2014 11:33:53 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-pb0-x230.google.com (mail-pb0-x230.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c01::230]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B43301A011E for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2014 11:33:53 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-pb0-f48.google.com with SMTP id md12so1492940pbc.7 for ; Wed, 05 Mar 2014 11:33:50 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=A8AD55MsyWY9/GD2QqAPaHS2tB8D/xO/vZMVjYgpgpA=; b=FdbKv1xRoHPj+3v9sWBVnQsz4bLct65dAv+48On/NttMx/TY2lOkPepLYPeMa7oVkU xLGj2ZQ8xA93jnCmiFCUUvqXB4l0ics1x+N+JHRQIlKzr9zfsuV9qLJBoVdHyE0MsH72 w7I3RbR25faoC66kVCPSnFgRgDl22ikTiDuhYMQDciTlQanh+LfSdyuNbKXJCU1uBcyy LpLJZTSNx8Ce1bBX7ZAi3iWUkvW25p6NokT/2zxY/VvqBGux+gytyZyxl+6vqHKTBOAP ZVITG7ocQzNS40s6AbGswfBm0H3Il9XBxfI5uXHgwVMC8oOlP2kz5aOZ+DT2AMV0wZ8h Antg== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.66.250.202 with SMTP id ze10mr9176869pac.153.1394048030238; Wed, 05 Mar 2014 11:33:50 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.66.220.102 with HTTP; Wed, 5 Mar 2014 11:33:50 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <53177A58.5040206@aegee.org> References: <53177A58.5040206@aegee.org> Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2014 19:33:50 +0000 Message-ID: From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" To: =?windows-1251?B?xOjr/+0gz+Dr4PPn7uI=?= Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7b15aeeda4710904f3e119ab Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-smtp/wGJ9Vo4tTzkuujCuwjziR42wGCY Cc: ietf-smtp Subject: Re: [ietf-smtp] Per-Recipient Data Responses X-BeenThere: ietf-smtp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "Discussion of issues related to Simple Mail Transfer Protocol \(SMTP\) \[RFC 821, RFC 2821, RFC 5321\]" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2014 19:33:55 -0000 --047d7b15aeeda4710904f3e119ab Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1251 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 7:26 PM, =C4=E8=EB=FF=ED =CF=E0=EB=E0=F3=E7=EE=E2 wrote: > > However, I would be glad if somebody contributes to Sendmail to extend th= e > milter-side/API, so that one can send over it arbitrary responses after > data-end and my milter just uses that API instead of me trying to hack > sendmail. > I could swear that was made available as part of milter as an FFR, but maybe I'm wrong. Maybe I just saw a patch that never got adopted and released. Either way, it's come up enough times over the years that maybe it's time to at least publish the spec. -MSK --047d7b15aeeda4710904f3e119ab Content-Type: text/html; charset=windows-1251 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 7:26 PM, =C4=E8=EB=FF=ED =CF=E0=EB= =E0=F3=E7=EE=E2 <dilyan.palauzov@aegee.org> wrote:

However, I would be glad if somebody contributes to Sendmail to extend the = milter-side/API, so that one can send over it arbitrary responses after dat= a-end and my milter just uses that API instead of me trying to hack sendmai= l.

I could swear that was made available as p= art of milter as an FFR, but maybe I'm wrong.=A0 Maybe I just saw a pat= ch that never got adopted and released.

Either way, it= 9;s come up enough times over the years that maybe it's time to at leas= t publish the spec.

-MSK

--047d7b15aeeda4710904f3e119ab-- From nobody Wed Mar 5 11:44:29 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietf-smtp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietf-smtp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 434C61A01F4 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2014 11:44:27 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.447 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.447 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.547] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id MTdvlLA6LJdA for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2014 11:44:25 -0800 (PST) Received: from ppsw-40.csi.cam.ac.uk (ppsw-40-v6.csi.cam.ac.uk [IPv6:2001:630:212:8::e:f40]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 156861A01D1 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2014 11:44:25 -0800 (PST) X-Cam-AntiVirus: no malware found X-Cam-ScannerInfo: http://www.cam.ac.uk/cs/email/scanner/ Received: from hermes-1.csi.cam.ac.uk ([131.111.8.51]:40447) by ppsw-40.csi.cam.ac.uk (smtp.hermes.cam.ac.uk [131.111.8.156]:25) with esmtpa (EXTERNAL:fanf2) id 1WLHjo-0001KU-li (Exim 4.82_3-c0e5623) (return-path ); Wed, 05 Mar 2014 19:44:20 +0000 Received: from fanf2 by hermes-1.csi.cam.ac.uk (hermes.cam.ac.uk) with local id 1WLHjo-0004fK-MF (Exim 4.72) (return-path ); Wed, 05 Mar 2014 19:44:20 +0000 Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2014 19:44:20 +0000 From: Tony Finch X-X-Sender: fanf2@hermes-1.csi.cam.ac.uk To: Brandon Long In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: <20140305185605.GA20951@x2.esmtp.org> User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (LSU 1167 2008-08-23) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: Tony Finch Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-smtp/oWRTz-slpcEUN0QiaI7zr6mZGrQ Cc: ietf-smtp Subject: Re: [ietf-smtp] Per-Recipient Data Responses X-BeenThere: ietf-smtp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "Discussion of issues related to Simple Mail Transfer Protocol \(SMTP\) \[RFC 821, RFC 2821, RFC 5321\]" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2014 19:44:27 -0000 Brandon Long wrote: > On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 10:56 AM, Claus Assmann wrote: > > > > It has been "adopted": MeTA1 and exim implement it. Maybe someone > > needs to "push" it through the IETF process? > > It must not be enabled by default, since I only saw about 5 MXs > yesterday that are advertising PRDR. It is an experimental compile-time option in Exim. Tony. -- f.anthony.n.finch http://dotat.at/ South Utsire, Southeast Forties: Southerly 5 to 7, veering southwesterly 4 or 5 later. Moderate or rough. Occasional rain. Moderate or good. From nobody Wed Mar 5 12:22:56 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietf-smtp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietf-smtp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5E5261A0290 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2014 12:22:54 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.148 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.148 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.547, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id KR97UNIksMhs for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2014 12:22:51 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.pscs.co.uk (mail.pscs.co.uk [188.65.177.237]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1E6BA1A0224 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2014 12:22:50 -0800 (PST) Authentication-Results: mail.pscs.co.uk; spf=none; auth=pass (cram-md5) smtp.auth=paul Received: from lmail.pscs.co.uk ([82.68.5.206]) by mail.pscs.co.uk ([188.65.177.237] running VPOP3) with ESMTP for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2014 20:22:30 -0000 Authentication-Results: lmail.pscs.co.uk; spf=none; auth=pass (cram-md5) smtp.auth=paul Received: from [192.168.57.132] ([92.27.146.145]) by lmail.pscs.co.uk ([192.168.66.70] running VPOP3) with ESMTP for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2014 20:22:43 -0000 Message-ID: <5317877B.2040908@pscs.co.uk> Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2014 20:22:19 +0000 From: Paul Smith User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.3.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ietf-smtp@ietf.org References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Authenticated-Sender: paul X-Server: VPOP3 Enterprise V6.6 - Registered X-Organisation: Paul Smith Computer Services X-Authenticated-Sender: paul Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-smtp/29RNPd6otGatG7wBqjr9zU21aI0 Subject: Re: [ietf-smtp] Per-Recipient Data Responses X-BeenThere: ietf-smtp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "Discussion of issues related to Simple Mail Transfer Protocol \(SMTP\) \[RFC 821, RFC 2821, RFC 5321\]" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2014 20:22:54 -0000 On 05/03/2014 18:20, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: > How come this never got adoption? It comes up from time to time in > "We really should do this" sorts of discussions, but it doesn't seem > like anyone ever took the plunge and it just expired. Is it just that > nobody does it because nobody else does it? > > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-hall-prdr-00 Hmm, this one's a tricky one. With our mail server we've been quite careful to do things which would either accept the "whole message", or reject it all. I can see places where we could change functionality to use PRDR, but the problem is that the user would expect it to always work, not be dependent on the sending MTA. So, we would have to 'fake' PRDR, by falling back to accepting the message and generating bounce messages, which isn't nice, and will lead to backscatter. (I suppose we could 'fake PRDR' by only allowing one recipient per message, but that has bad side-effects as well) So, I'd be reluctant to implement it on the server-side until PRDR support was widely available, even though this is where the benefits would be. OTOH, implementing it on the client-side should have minimal bad side-effects, but would also give minimal direct benefits, so there's little pressure to do that. - Paul Smith Computer Services Tel: 01484 855800 Vat No: GB 685 6987 53 From nobody Wed Mar 5 13:25:15 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietf-smtp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietf-smtp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4CD2D1A076B for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2014 13:25:13 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.9 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, SPF_PASS=-0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 03qQJfRH04oE for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2014 13:25:10 -0800 (PST) Received: from mx1.poolp.org (mx1.poolp.org [88.190.237.114]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 155491A02EE for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2014 13:25:09 -0800 (PST) Received: from poolp.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]); by poolp.org (OpenSMTPD) with ESMTP id c705b1e5; Wed, 5 Mar 2014 22:25:03 +0100 (CET) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=poolp.org; h=date:from:to :cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version:content-type :in-reply-to; s=opensmtpd; bh=v04odyfsXg/Bmm3hHZ3+C2uAcPI=; b=m3 qckUn2XRYOZQtTxU7wxW1FeTOuqpvrC2WW801w913eT/F00YIFG+F3gbH5yc7Jfc eVrvRlTD4ZfJhXW43T60pZxwkqttDy2sfBC/KqzLSFS9SVDAmTFRlaxXCCbUx9nS Rnq2yywJJwbISEDV+aqwN78yeaA4rs2QAv2b7vLDk= Received: from localhost (1000@localhost [local]); by localhost (OpenSMTPD) with ESMTPA id 4310a5f0; Wed, 5 Mar 2014 22:25:03 +0100 (CET) Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2014 22:25:03 +0100 From: Gilles Chehade To: Paul Smith Message-ID: <20140305212503.GA5430@poolp.org> References: <5317877B.2040908@pscs.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <5317877B.2040908@pscs.co.uk> X-Operating-System: OpenBSD poolp.org 5.4 GENERIC.MP User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-smtp/HeJ3rGWwI7utBUHxIc-vCZozLcM Cc: ietf-smtp@ietf.org Subject: Re: [ietf-smtp] Per-Recipient Data Responses X-BeenThere: ietf-smtp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "Discussion of issues related to Simple Mail Transfer Protocol \(SMTP\) \[RFC 821, RFC 2821, RFC 5321\]" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2014 21:25:13 -0000 On Wed, Mar 05, 2014 at 08:22:19PM +0000, Paul Smith wrote: > On 05/03/2014 18:20, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: > >How come this never got adoption? It comes up from time to time > >in "We really should do this" sorts of discussions, but it doesn't > >seem like anyone ever took the plunge and it just expired. Is it > >just that nobody does it because nobody else does it? > > > >http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-hall-prdr-00 > > Hmm, this one's a tricky one. With our mail server we've been quite > careful to do things which would either accept the "whole message", > or reject it all. I can see places where we could change > functionality to use PRDR, but the problem is that the user would > expect it to always work, not be dependent on the sending MTA. So, > we would have to 'fake' PRDR, by falling back to accepting the > message and generating bounce messages, which isn't nice, and will > lead to backscatter. > Correct me if I'm wrong, I may have missed something in the draft: PRDR implies that deliveries be attempted during the SMTP transaction so this cannot really be implemented by MTA that use a two-step approach to first commit to queue and acknowledge responsibility, then later deliver the message to the mailbox ? -- Gilles Chehade https://www.poolp.org @poolpOrg From nobody Wed Mar 5 13:38:16 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietf-smtp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietf-smtp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2B7EB1A02ED for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2014 13:38:15 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.549 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.549 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.547, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id f4V92VHa82Ej for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2014 13:38:13 -0800 (PST) Received: from mauve.mrochek.com (mauve.mrochek.com [66.59.230.40]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 398F61A02B6 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2014 13:38:13 -0800 (PST) Received: from dkim-sign.mauve.mrochek.com by mauve.mrochek.com (PMDF V6.1-1 #35243) id <01P533Y36HHC0019HH@mauve.mrochek.com> for ietf-smtp@ietf.org; Wed, 5 Mar 2014 13:33:02 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=mrochek.com; s=mauve; t=1394055181; bh=0MJ6L9iMJ07n1i9Wp31t4HXuPmLIqQua0X+CCkB8GgM=; h=Cc:Date:From:Subject:In-reply-to:References:To; b=mmusw0FSFdveveUhl2JqjdRgGpHknerUdcS56Zab5Rx6FrHe2KYL/VI355uIhlhUh JPehhbrn5BpcDSqDEXD0KudnQipAwoRt+p63YzB6lYrjtJwa5TcjFqpcB/4vkgj/ms zN3wUK1To+amMlai6jInKfFhHgCgq0i+suywRF10= MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=iso-8859-1 Received: from mauve.mrochek.com by mauve.mrochek.com (PMDF V6.1-1 #35243) id <01P52QUUYI1S00004W@mauve.mrochek.com>; Wed, 5 Mar 2014 13:32:57 -0800 (PST) Message-id: <01P533XZUG5600004W@mauve.mrochek.com> Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2014 13:30:28 -0800 (PST) From: Ned Freed In-reply-to: "Your message dated Wed, 05 Mar 2014 22:25:03 +0100" <20140305212503.GA5430@poolp.org> References: <5317877B.2040908@pscs.co.uk> <20140305212503.GA5430@poolp.org> To: Gilles Chehade Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-smtp/8Ml8vHN2N8umNrwA4wl_4txFJPQ Cc: ietf-smtp@ietf.org, Paul Smith Subject: Re: [ietf-smtp] Per-Recipient Data Responses X-BeenThere: ietf-smtp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "Discussion of issues related to Simple Mail Transfer Protocol \(SMTP\) \[RFC 821, RFC 2821, RFC 5321\]" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2014 21:38:15 -0000 > On Wed, Mar 05, 2014 at 08:22:19PM +0000, Paul Smith wrote: > > On 05/03/2014 18:20, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: > > >How come this never got adoption? It comes up from time to time > > >in "We really should do this" sorts of discussions, but it doesn't > > >seem like anyone ever took the plunge and it just expired. Is it > > >just that nobody does it because nobody else does it? > > > > > >http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-hall-prdr-00 > > > > Hmm, this one's a tricky one. With our mail server we've been quite > > careful to do things which would either accept the "whole message", > > or reject it all. I can see places where we could change > > functionality to use PRDR, but the problem is that the user would > > expect it to always work, not be dependent on the sending MTA. So, > > we would have to 'fake' PRDR, by falling back to accepting the > > message and generating bounce messages, which isn't nice, and will > > lead to backscatter. > > > Correct me if I'm wrong, I may have missed something in the draft: > PRDR implies that deliveries be attempted during the SMTP transaction so > this cannot really be implemented by MTA that use a two-step approach to > first commit to queue and acknowledge responsibility, then later deliver > the message to the mailbox ? No, that's incorrect. From the draft: Furthermore, positive responses are not a guarantee that any subsequent transfer or delivery operations will also succeed, but instead only indicate that the message appears to be acceptable for the recipient according to the rules and policies that are known to the current server. You should do as much vaidation as possible before accepting an address or message, but that's true in general; it has nothing to do with this extension. More generally, any notion that this extension eliminates backscatter is incorrect for a whole bunch of reasons, this included. At most it limits it a bit. Ned From nobody Wed Mar 5 13:38:22 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietf-smtp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietf-smtp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DF6BE1A071B for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2014 13:38:20 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.148 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.148 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DRUGS_ERECTILE=1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.547, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id A1sM9bvThYSd for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2014 13:38:18 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.pscs.co.uk (mail.pscs.co.uk [188.65.177.237]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CBF891A071A for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2014 13:38:17 -0800 (PST) Authentication-Results: mail.pscs.co.uk; spf=none; auth=pass (cram-md5) smtp.auth=paul Received: from lmail.pscs.co.uk ([82.68.5.206]) by mail.pscs.co.uk ([188.65.177.237] running VPOP3) with ESMTP; Wed, 5 Mar 2014 21:37:56 -0000 Authentication-Results: lmail.pscs.co.uk; spf=none; auth=pass (cram-md5) smtp.auth=paul Received: from [192.168.57.132] ([92.27.146.145]) by lmail.pscs.co.uk ([192.168.66.70] running VPOP3) with ESMTP; Wed, 5 Mar 2014 21:38:10 -0000 Message-ID: <5317992A.9050409@pscs.co.uk> Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2014 21:37:46 +0000 From: Paul Smith User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.3.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Gilles Chehade References: <5317877B.2040908@pscs.co.uk> <20140305212503.GA5430@poolp.org> In-Reply-To: <20140305212503.GA5430@poolp.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Authenticated-Sender: paul X-Server: VPOP3 Enterprise V6.6 - Registered X-Organisation: Paul Smith Computer Services X-Authenticated-Sender: paul Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-smtp/zbTVMOwtGDGUakuym6ghkUf4z-k Cc: ietf-smtp@ietf.org Subject: Re: [ietf-smtp] Per-Recipient Data Responses X-BeenThere: ietf-smtp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "Discussion of issues related to Simple Mail Transfer Protocol \(SMTP\) \[RFC 821, RFC 2821, RFC 5321\]" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2014 21:38:21 -0000 On 05/03/2014 21:25, Gilles Chehade wrote: > Correct me if I'm wrong, I may have missed something in the draft: > PRDR implies that deliveries be attempted during the SMTP transaction > so this cannot really be implemented by MTA that use a two-step > approach to first commit to queue and acknowledge responsibility, then > later deliver the message to the mailbox ? No, that's correct (AIUI) - all is fine if the sender support PRDR. The problem is that if users expect PRDR functionality to be there, you can't have it work sometimes and not others. So, when the sender doesn't support PRDR, the receiver needs to fake it by first accepting the message for all recipients and then sending delivery failure reports back. Otherwise, one user could say "reject a message if it it contains the word 'viagra'" and another could want to accept i. Then, sometimes the first user would have the message rejected (if it is just to them, or the sender supports PRDR), and sometimes they would receive the message (if it is to both users, and the sender doesn't support PRDR). Users wouldn't be happy about this inconsistency, and the support load would be unacceptable from our PoV. So, if the sender didn't support PRDR, we'd have to accept the message, deliver it to the second user, and send a bounce message back (with risk of backscatter) for the first user. In any case, spammers would probably not support PRDR, and that'd probably be the most common case people would use it, and that would be the most likely case to cause backscatter from accepting then sending bounce messages. - Paul Smith Computer Services Tel: 01484 855800 Vat No: GB 685 6987 53 From gilles@poolp.org Wed Mar 5 14:04:28 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietf-smtp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietf-smtp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7F2161A0227 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2014 14:04:28 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.547 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.547 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.547, SPF_PASS=-0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id EDirSxQg0Q8a for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2014 14:04:25 -0800 (PST) Received: from mx1.poolp.org (mx1.poolp.org [88.190.237.114]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 667A31A0175 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2014 14:04:24 -0800 (PST) Received: from poolp.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]); by poolp.org (OpenSMTPD) with ESMTP id a390e5ce; Wed, 5 Mar 2014 23:04:18 +0100 (CET) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=poolp.org; h=date:from:to :cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version:content-type :in-reply-to; s=opensmtpd; bh=cOOT+GcfOwSon72ncYgoysk+5jM=; b=yu f5D8gfWV9mYOnhFQg6Jnck10eCLbGre7EG8J4FRi8BZBuuE6+2PWLtl0UDTYGYPm 23x5/Wl1JXECRAlYOhDM/5sJ5hU6N3+Bfo0yZgZY+tEQxstw2kJ3qTkqot4a0oiw 7LvGZ88ZEJHKdRLznOZi1sAPlAzDoxNkL4q3I7ct4= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=poolp.org; h=date:from:to:cc :subject:message-id:references:mime-version:content-type :in-reply-to; q=dns; s=opensmtpd; b=yRyfMtl7uhHvMvjff/KtveuXuKUc jwJ9curYvncZirR7uwIEEx+4+/tFGtNRwqS6trGSYzoNuEEap4dBMLNdnyw+pz9t AodKwPFUebmpQoL7QdrSJ4SMZFCzZ87itqREYje4XduC/eEFzo0IyslIZPMphYnx POVgg+X9PT5bo0o= Received: from localhost (1000@localhost [local]); by localhost (OpenSMTPD) with ESMTPA id b6f99707; Wed, 5 Mar 2014 23:04:18 +0100 (CET) Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2014 23:04:18 +0100 From: Gilles Chehade To: Ned Freed Message-ID: <20140305220418.GB7126@poolp.org> References: <5317877B.2040908@pscs.co.uk> <20140305212503.GA5430@poolp.org> <01P533XZUG5600004W@mauve.mrochek.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <01P533XZUG5600004W@mauve.mrochek.com> X-Operating-System: OpenBSD poolp.org 5.4 GENERIC.MP User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-smtp/2jydzQeTuPANHy07DIfk4pQgePs X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 05 Mar 2014 14:53:01 -0800 Cc: Gilles Chehade , ietf-smtp@ietf.org, Paul Smith Subject: Re: [ietf-smtp] Per-Recipient Data Responses X-BeenThere: ietf-smtp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "Discussion of issues related to Simple Mail Transfer Protocol \(SMTP\) \[RFC 821, RFC 2821, RFC 5321\]" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2014 22:05:38 -0000 On Wed, Mar 05, 2014 at 01:30:28PM -0800, Ned Freed wrote: > > > On Wed, Mar 05, 2014 at 08:22:19PM +0000, Paul Smith wrote: > > > On 05/03/2014 18:20, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: > > > >How come this never got adoption? It comes up from time to time > > > >in "We really should do this" sorts of discussions, but it doesn't > > > >seem like anyone ever took the plunge and it just expired. Is it > > > >just that nobody does it because nobody else does it? > > > > > > > >http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-hall-prdr-00 > > > > > > Hmm, this one's a tricky one. With our mail server we've been quite > > > careful to do things which would either accept the "whole message", > > > or reject it all. I can see places where we could change > > > functionality to use PRDR, but the problem is that the user would > > > expect it to always work, not be dependent on the sending MTA. So, > > > we would have to 'fake' PRDR, by falling back to accepting the > > > message and generating bounce messages, which isn't nice, and will > > > lead to backscatter. > > > > > > Correct me if I'm wrong, I may have missed something in the draft: > > > PRDR implies that deliveries be attempted during the SMTP transaction so > > this cannot really be implemented by MTA that use a two-step approach to > > first commit to queue and acknowledge responsibility, then later deliver > > the message to the mailbox ? > > No, that's incorrect. From the draft: > > Furthermore, positive responses are not a > guarantee that any subsequent transfer or delivery operations > will also succeed, but instead only indicate that the message > appears to be acceptable for the recipient according to the > rules and policies that are known to the current server. > Well, my understanding of this paragraph is that if I do get a positive response for a recipient, it is for this transaction only. Trying again to transfer/deliver to the same recipient will not necessarily mean the response will be positive again. If PRDR allows you to answer positively to mails that you will possibly fail later down the chain doesn't it mean that any PRDR positive answer can basically be ignored because it carries no guarantees (as in people will fake positive replies because it is easier in some cases, and they can bounce later anyway) ? > You should do as much vaidation as possible before accepting an address or > message, but that's true in general; it has nothing to do with this > extension. > agreed -- Gilles Chehade https://www.poolp.org @poolpOrg From nobody Wed Mar 5 15:02:23 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietf-smtp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietf-smtp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 93BCA1A02B8 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2014 15:02:19 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.9 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id EGhGkvC55iuf for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2014 15:02:12 -0800 (PST) Received: from m.wordtothewise.com (misc.wordtothewise.com [184.105.179.154]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 244281A029F for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2014 15:02:12 -0800 (PST) Received: from satsuke.wordtothewise.com (204.11.227.194.static.etheric.net [204.11.227.194]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: steve) by m.wordtothewise.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 934DC2DDE4 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2014 15:02:08 -0800 (PST) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.2 \(1874\)) From: Steve Atkins In-Reply-To: Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2014 15:02:07 -0800 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: To: "ietf-smtp@ietf.org Group" X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1874) Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-smtp/0W17dUzM07KQaWLKjM_WdH6VMHY Subject: Re: [ietf-smtp] Per-Recipient Data Responses X-BeenThere: ietf-smtp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "Discussion of issues related to Simple Mail Transfer Protocol \(SMTP\) \[RFC 821, RFC 2821, RFC 5321\]" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2014 23:02:20 -0000 On Mar 5, 2014, at 10:20 AM, Murray S. Kucherawy = wrote: > How come this never got adoption? It comes up from time to time in = "We really should do this" sorts of discussions, but it doesn't seem = like anyone ever took the plunge and it just expired. Is it just that = nobody does it because nobody else does it? >=20 > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-hall-prdr-00 What sort of smtp clients /senders of email are the target market for = this? Most of the obvious users I can think of (send lots of similar email on = an ongoing fashion, care deeply enough about bounce management to really = want to track which recipients are bouncing, technically competent = enough to both implement and make good use of PRDR) don=92t tend to = batch and blast, rather they tend to send unique emails to each = recipient. (I=92m sure it=92s been discussed before, but I don=92t recall what the = answer was and there=92s no mention of it in the draft.) Cheers, Steve From nobody Wed Mar 5 15:49:55 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietf-smtp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietf-smtp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2BF381A007F for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2014 15:49:52 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.926 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.926 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.547, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3PZF13oIXyhh for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2014 15:49:50 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-ie0-x235.google.com (mail-ie0-x235.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c03::235]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 208511A0077 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2014 15:49:49 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-ie0-f181.google.com with SMTP id tp5so1840501ieb.26 for ; Wed, 05 Mar 2014 15:49:46 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=+XK9jBMlYTDdfmW2VX5iXrbfXwwppzAdAezK1dEJJCs=; b=i/qtp76/hHwVQBngt6maiLI8fjZFDpOIszQNIKqCNyoMen3jEhhjsAZESv+E0hPBHR q6a8fAHMo1J7n45NsWBoVLkJfX7hcsZsue24luf63vG4qz3zDCuBGMxMN6UH1xPCOB32 KauwapkTssP4cipNn0lNJ27eDJ3riWk6XPuqA60lg43NuUx2OWC4j/TXc7s7b9f2exIF w0DcdQTg2kzUM3X0p49mXen0d6qr7JnWR8BqH1jPZrzuk4Btv8cyLVZNJI7in9d6bufv wen3pPHkRrQhSSp/m8RLNFPuIYTW7vlrIF0oWI2krHSZAp+MMwPL++OpcfshKNk3BlNe nKMw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=+XK9jBMlYTDdfmW2VX5iXrbfXwwppzAdAezK1dEJJCs=; b=GbvbkfPkMpkrILlE9L10PXF5bRFeB8BfhqS4cxbWRwapi9cwS8H+Nj56NABvt+XTut TvcjtvDNNI7kdNhk1bcPnVUOKCwpwODRLg8i/78AiNHzPtvtX2Nkalxel+R+awxeROV9 7NV1Svl2skxz7f1aqgPHCA+EohKRRL/imicj5ucc4KdJDdIeNHyyRfo+IcOUVOySHisq phm2DGd6iILT428e9KhqQDuwE5HHslxuQN2S7bgX6gbSgMPTyQZmsOvJVeNX0oSYlUeR 1SrDxhvvXtO6HhkZcRq/17kL7evxLFfCt2eUN+z4/HECc5SYWy3W7XgEqScXqJdxSEDH Cz1g== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnk/9gl+Wnbip0GWmvNSFHf0i8VpYID6lu5q/l3BI6xY4nd4eFXw+0g/xl0Xy0dQxiGkMHGbbPtuPsKjvi2E68SGkuW4meRI96+u9lOfEVKeLM8DFPN5VNwhHLx/zLWiK1TFj/DkZUjWtbCoVysVHuuluTrgAko2D2n6NjnMdSbXN9Y2eQO/LO0I++o/HtppH3JiblI MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.43.170.4 with SMTP id no4mr7082830icc.15.1394063386269; Wed, 05 Mar 2014 15:49:46 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.64.251.132 with HTTP; Wed, 5 Mar 2014 15:49:43 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References:

Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2014 15:49:43 -0800 Message-ID: From: Brandon Long To: Steve Atkins Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-smtp/jK69E2e4pBVtzfdg2KaZt_L6CX8 Cc: "ietf-smtp@ietf.org Group" Subject: Re: [ietf-smtp] Per-Recipient Data Responses X-BeenThere: ietf-smtp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "Discussion of issues related to Simple Mail Transfer Protocol \(SMTP\) \[RFC 821, RFC 2821, RFC 5321\]" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2014 23:49:52 -0000 On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 3:02 PM, Steve Atkins wrote: > > On Mar 5, 2014, at 10:20 AM, Murray S. Kucherawy wr= ote: > >> How come this never got adoption? It comes up from time to time in "We = really should do this" sorts of discussions, but it doesn't seem like anyon= e ever took the plunge and it just expired. Is it just that nobody does it= because nobody else does it? >> >> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-hall-prdr-00 > > What sort of smtp clients /senders of email are the target market for thi= s? > > Most of the obvious users I can think of (send lots of similar email on a= n ongoing fashion, care deeply enough about bounce management to really wan= t to track which recipients are bouncing, technically competent enough to b= oth implement and make good use of PRDR) don=E2=80=99t tend to batch and bl= ast, rather they tend to send unique emails to each recipient. > > (I=E2=80=99m sure it=E2=80=99s been discussed before, but I don=E2=80=99t= recall what the answer was and there=E2=80=99s no mention of it in the dra= ft.) For us, the most obvious use case is for enterprise routing rules. For example, you can imagine that a school might implement an objectionable content filter for students, but not for faculty. In that case, a message containing such content that was in the same smtp transaction could now be allowed to the teacher and rejected by the student. Today, we have to accept for both and then generate a bounce. As for ESPs, yes, if you're already doing single recipients per transaction, this isn't especially useful. As for spammers, not all spammers run their own software. Even those that do tend to just throw things together using whatever parts they find, so they could grab some library which does this without thinking too much about it. Others abuse existing infrastructure by hijacking accounts and such, so they'll get whatever impl the hijacked infra already has. I could even imagine that spammers would find this useful if it increased their immediate knowledge of block rates given they almost certainly are using forged senders or aren't checking the bounces. Anyways, the obvious use case is per-user filters (spam or rule based), neither of which are really that strong, I'd think. Brandon From nobody Wed Mar 5 16:28:02 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietf-smtp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietf-smtp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B8E021A0004 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2014 16:27:59 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.549 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.549 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.547, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id JdRHRqpyrOve for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2014 16:27:57 -0800 (PST) Received: from articuno.alameth.org (articuno.alameth.org [IPv6:2600:3c01::f03c:91ff:fe70:755c]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 50B091A0011 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2014 16:27:56 -0800 (PST) Received: from clavinova.eng.sonicwall.com (users.sonicwall.com [67.115.118.5]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by articuno.alameth.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A46098E71; Thu, 6 Mar 2014 00:36:07 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=alameth.org; s=n01; t=1394066167; bh=qCgW2IHny2Jaw3IcCzGHthRwbf6IKlgW8zIeY4Yg3x4=; h=Date:From:To:Subject:References:In-Reply-To; b=bv/28ifl7taMueeIneG4eu19Y6rX9MOucMLKeEcZ+9vYkuWSh0czM6749J+gjCFyu SbiaoTIN9CpygJCHv19doPenL/cpvhqc7dQho0wCQW3uAI3wkzwM2oOaVU57O55nbS CpIhej6imMAKtXReb6m6AzjafdrFlxh/TdhnDM/Y= Message-ID: <5317C108.7050603@alameth.org> Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2014 16:27:52 -0800 From: "Carl S. Gutekunst" User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.24 (X11/20100228) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "ietf-smtp@ietf.org Group" References:

In-Reply-To: X-Stationery: 0.5.1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-smtp/BcbXxd4mcNi6he7pxYUugAXfL98 Subject: Re: [ietf-smtp] Per-Recipient Data Responses X-BeenThere: ietf-smtp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "Discussion of issues related to Simple Mail Transfer Protocol \(SMTP\) \[RFC 821, RFC 2821, RFC 5321\]" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 06 Mar 2014 00:28:00 -0000 Brandon Long wrote: > For us, the most obvious use case is for enterprise routing rules. > For example, you can imagine that a school might implement an > objectionable content filter for students, but not for faculty. In > that case, a message containing such content that was in the same smtp > transaction could now be allowed to the teacher and rejected by the > student. Today, we have to accept for both and then generate a > bounce. > .... > Anyways, the obvious use case is per-user filters (spam or rule > based), neither of which are really that strong, I'd think. > At my two most recent employers, we referred to this situation as a "disposition conflict": one Email message, but different policies configured by different recipients created a situation where it wasn't possible to convey a single response (250, 450, or 550) to the sender. There are many more ways to get in this state than just spam filters: policy rules that allow message bifurcation, for example, or data loss protection filters that defer messages for administrative action or kick them back to the sender. While store-and-forward MTAs have ways to resolve this, SMTP Proxies do not: there's no place to queue messages for retries, and no ability to send DSNs. So instead you implement a long set of rules ("if this, then this") to handle the conflicts in the least surprising way; but the result is still unsatisfying and occasionally quite surprising. If you're responsible for an SMTP proxy, PRDR gets much more interesting. From nobody Wed Mar 5 19:48:42 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietf-smtp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietf-smtp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2154D1A009E for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2014 19:48:41 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.984 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.984 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FRT_LITTLE=1.555, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.547, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_FRT_LITTLE=0.01] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ZlWW4M8x2xxE for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2014 19:48:39 -0800 (PST) Received: from mauve.mrochek.com (mauve.mrochek.com [66.59.230.40]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C5B021A0099 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2014 19:48:39 -0800 (PST) Received: from dkim-sign.mauve.mrochek.com by mauve.mrochek.com (PMDF V6.1-1 #35243) id <01P53GWCUFF400186D@mauve.mrochek.com> for ietf-smtp@ietf.org; Wed, 5 Mar 2014 19:43:29 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=mrochek.com; s=mauve; t=1394077409; bh=U+ceOSzWxxNOn78+dHmxt2vhjmDFY3Jz85V2yjf6kFY=; h=Cc:Date:From:Subject:In-reply-to:References:To; b=Icss+UGBomZnttysmYyhSQbgoJobkwNQ+7TYfKRDGGiH4MSoaDE/yJWokd+Gs1RMZ UW3bDRPg2I1EOkuVNR/rTKy6zujNy8RTYWXYcdVguotQ/UJdJAmPPsNOKlueLkvSLC rfRFlArxpKfYKI4wimASaJ0oWmy8bVg8VR2ewSTw= MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=utf-8 Received: from mauve.mrochek.com by mauve.mrochek.com (PMDF V6.1-1 #35243) id <01P52QUUYI1S00004W@mauve.mrochek.com>; Wed, 5 Mar 2014 19:43:24 -0800 (PST) Message-id: <01P53GW9IZIG00004W@mauve.mrochek.com> Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2014 19:25:31 -0800 (PST) From: Ned Freed In-reply-to: "Your message dated Wed, 05 Mar 2014 15:49:43 -0800" References:

To: Brandon Long Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-smtp/SzE9VUS2cDRHob7Mg_t1iZBVUHQ Cc: Steve Atkins , "ietf-smtp@ietf.org Group" Subject: Re: [ietf-smtp] Per-Recipient Data Responses X-BeenThere: ietf-smtp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "Discussion of issues related to Simple Mail Transfer Protocol \(SMTP\) \[RFC 821, RFC 2821, RFC 5321\]" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 06 Mar 2014 03:48:41 -0000 > Anyways, the obvious use case is per-user filters (spam or rule > based), neither of which are really that strong, I'd think. This is exactly the situation with our MTA - we go to a lot of trouble to reject as much as possible at the RCPT TO stage, so by the time we get to the end of DATA the only thing that can generate a per-recipient failure is a sieve filter result (this includes spam filter results), and then only when that sieve uses a reject/ereject rather than discard. And the problem with reject/ereject is they are rarely exposed by sieve building interfaces, precisely because of the potential to create backscatter. It also doesn't completely eliminate the need to generate DSNs, e.g., when one of the RCPT TO addresses bifurcates on our end to a mixture of valid and invalid recipients. All that said, here's an idea: A new sieve action "prdrreject" that acts like reject if PRDR is available and the RCPT TO address didn't bifurcate into multiple recipients, and like discard otherwise. That would give you the best possible result while not creating backscatter. One downside is the least astonishment principle violation, but frankly, being able to get better messages back at least sometimes would be worth it IMO. I also dispair of writing down the semantics of such a thing in a way implementors would understand. But all in all, this makes PRDR considerably more attractive to me to implement. One thing I'm not wild about is the final response. It strikes me as unnecessary. Finally, in terms of implementation difficulty, the client side of this would be easy for us, since it can piggyback off of existing LMTP client support. The server side is a litttle harder - keeping track of things is a bit more subtle than it first appears - but quite doable. Ned From nobody Thu Mar 6 05:31:53 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietf-smtp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietf-smtp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8B3921A02EF for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2014 05:31:49 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.447 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.447 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.547] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id OPsrHgBnnEcd for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2014 05:31:43 -0800 (PST) Received: from ppsw-50.csi.cam.ac.uk (ppsw-50-v6.csi.cam.ac.uk [IPv6:2001:630:212:8::e:f50]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0BED81A02CE for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2014 05:31:32 -0800 (PST) X-Cam-AntiVirus: no malware found X-Cam-ScannerInfo: http://www.cam.ac.uk/cs/email/scanner/ Received: from hermes-1.csi.cam.ac.uk ([131.111.8.51]:37560) by ppsw-50.csi.cam.ac.uk (smtp.hermes.cam.ac.uk [131.111.8.158]:25) with esmtpa (EXTERNAL:fanf2) id 1WLYOQ-0006b7-r4 (Exim 4.82_3-c0e5623) (return-path ); Thu, 06 Mar 2014 13:31:22 +0000 Received: from fanf2 by hermes-1.csi.cam.ac.uk (hermes.cam.ac.uk) with local id 1WLYOQ-0005X9-Cr (Exim 4.72) (return-path ); Thu, 06 Mar 2014 13:31:22 +0000 Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2014 13:31:22 +0000 From: Tony Finch X-X-Sender: fanf2@hermes-1.csi.cam.ac.uk To: Ned Freed In-Reply-To: <01P53GW9IZIG00004W@mauve.mrochek.com> Message-ID: References:

<01P53GW9IZIG00004W@mauve.mrochek.com> User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (LSU 1167 2008-08-23) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: Tony Finch Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-smtp/tiXV-1fe9KURKWTyY5SbOEVnMnU Cc: Brandon Long , Steve Atkins , "ietf-smtp@ietf.org Group" Subject: Re: [ietf-smtp] Per-Recipient Data Responses X-BeenThere: ietf-smtp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "Discussion of issues related to Simple Mail Transfer Protocol \(SMTP\) \[RFC 821, RFC 2821, RFC 5321\]" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 06 Mar 2014 13:31:49 -0000 Ned Freed wrote: > > All that said, here's an idea: A new sieve action "prdrreject" that acts like > reject if PRDR is available and the RCPT TO address didn't bifurcate into > multiple recipients, and like discard otherwise. That would give you the best > possible result while not creating backscatter. Rather than discarding I think it is better to file into a quarantine or spam mailbox. This gives recipients a better way of dealing with questions about missing messages, without involving the postmaster. Tony. -- f.anthony.n.finch http://dotat.at/ Thames, Dover, Wight: South 4 or 5, veering southwest 5 to 7. Slight or moderate. Mainly fair. Moderate or good. From nobody Thu Mar 6 08:44:38 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietf-smtp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietf-smtp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C21BB1A00AB for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2014 08:44:36 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.549 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.549 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.547, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id UT4G97gEhgcA for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2014 08:44:35 -0800 (PST) Received: from mauve.mrochek.com (mauve.mrochek.com [66.59.230.40]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 901941A0051 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2014 08:44:35 -0800 (PST) Received: from dkim-sign.mauve.mrochek.com by mauve.mrochek.com (PMDF V6.1-1 #35243) id <01P5480C0GXS001C1L@mauve.mrochek.com> for ietf-smtp@ietf.org; Thu, 6 Mar 2014 08:39:28 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=mrochek.com; s=mauve; t=1394123966; bh=ZORlJ49PrA//K0sOkMK76XP4j5jjZvUUks7X24JRdGk=; h=Cc:Date:From:Subject:In-reply-to:References:To; b=OZmMiQ81Y+CDF+jnjmBO427bxylVepVyD6VTga4Oy00clSUrvpSIgohUxFExFKSTJ YNaDzWwLLG/+G1G+6UXN1nF0P0hXfhxQplIAGTxbip4CWyxeuXDmoLFmlzIRPpBcag aw28qrIUficycUGIijiNZDLMU+wwl3alQVu//fJQ= MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=iso-8859-1 Received: from mauve.mrochek.com by mauve.mrochek.com (PMDF V6.1-1 #35243) id <01P52QUUYI1S00004W@mauve.mrochek.com>; Thu, 6 Mar 2014 08:39:14 -0800 (PST) Message-id: <01P54804IE0G00004W@mauve.mrochek.com> Date: Thu, 06 Mar 2014 08:37:11 -0800 (PST) From: Ned Freed In-reply-to: "Your message dated Thu, 06 Mar 2014 13:31:22 +0000" References:

<01P53GW9IZIG00004W@mauve.mrochek.com> To: Tony Finch Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-smtp/UUqpP7hGp-fq7FFqsUpX4TX_JNI Cc: Brandon Long , Steve Atkins , Ned Freed , "ietf-smtp@ietf.org Group" Subject: Re: [ietf-smtp] Per-Recipient Data Responses X-BeenThere: ietf-smtp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "Discussion of issues related to Simple Mail Transfer Protocol \(SMTP\) \[RFC 821, RFC 2821, RFC 5321\]" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 06 Mar 2014 16:44:36 -0000 > Ned Freed wrote: > > > > All that said, here's an idea: A new sieve action "prdrreject" that acts like > > reject if PRDR is available and the RCPT TO address didn't bifurcate into > > multiple recipients, and like discard otherwise. That would give you the best > > possible result while not creating backscatter. > Rather than discarding I think it is better to file into a quarantine or > spam mailbox. This gives recipients a better way of dealing with questions > about missing messages, without involving the postmaster. Also an option, and one we support, but in my experience rarely used in practice. Ned From nobody Thu Mar 6 09:03:55 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietf-smtp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietf-smtp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B6B4D1A017E for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2014 09:03:52 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.549 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.549 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.547, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3fPRKtnyDWzN for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2014 09:03:50 -0800 (PST) Received: from articuno.alameth.org (articuno.alameth.org [IPv6:2600:3c01::f03c:91ff:fe70:755c]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 426A41A019C for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2014 09:03:50 -0800 (PST) Received: from growlithe.local (76-191-206-73.dsl.dynamic.sonic.net [76.191.206.73]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by articuno.alameth.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0873B8E71; Thu, 6 Mar 2014 17:12:02 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=alameth.org; s=n01; t=1394125922; bh=DymVc1jiStuO/fyZjl1zP1/biPz6meMZMOF9RiBTX54=; h=Date:From:To:CC:Subject:References:In-Reply-To; b=GxBzEat59BE/M6LEPsOIEIyl9jGa9BdNNCIvmQJG9xdHdhKxS8xoGWQ3jXfMAWUSH UI+giTtwvysMnrZVCv5YobqKW7DjcuqsvaGgN3LFi1QCF3C2oqWD5SPKfS0b6jJ0q5 HOcYsq5hQ5KkG/sVCmAcI6OjFB29ug19NjIp4ZxE= Message-ID: <5318AA71.5050500@alameth.org> Date: Thu, 06 Mar 2014 09:03:45 -0800 From: "Carl S. Gutekunst" User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.24 (Macintosh/20100228) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Ned Freed References:

<01P53GW9IZIG00004W@mauve.mrochek.com> <01P54804IE0G00004W@mauve.mrochek.com> In-Reply-To: <01P54804IE0G00004W@mauve.mrochek.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-smtp/HTdXnFIkj52cPT-bqf9x-aL6GQM Cc: Tony Finch , Brandon Long , Steve Atkins , "ietf-smtp@ietf.org Group" Subject: Re: [ietf-smtp] Per-Recipient Data Responses X-BeenThere: ietf-smtp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "Discussion of issues related to Simple Mail Transfer Protocol \(SMTP\) \[RFC 821, RFC 2821, RFC 5321\]" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: