On 24-Jun-20 15:08, Toerless Eckert wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 07:44:12PM -0700, Benjamin Kaduk wrote:
>>>> We already had this debate.
.....
>
> "violates the rules set down by the specification for the technology"
>
> ??
>
> I have not seen any supporting evidence for that. the rfc822name is
> a perfect rfc822name formatted string.
Well, more than that. It's a perfectly valid email address, accepted by
conformant SMTP servers.
Yes, it does lead to a delivery failure, but it doesn't just *look like* an
email address, it *is* an email address. Why is it misuse of rfc822name to
express a valid email address that has no mailbox behind it? Is this in any way
a security vulnerability? What does it break?
I still don't see how this qualifies as a DISCUSS issue. I do see that it is
unaesthetic. I do see how it meets several of the DISCUSS non-criteria at
https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/iesg-discuss-criteria/#stand-undisc
Brian
--- Begin Message ---
** Address not found **
Your message wasn't delivered to
rfcself+fd89b714f3db00000200000064000000+area51.resea...@acp.example.com
because the domain acp.example.com couldn't be found. Check for typos or
unnecessary spaces and try again.
The response was:
DNS Error: 111832 DNS type 'mx' lookup of acp.example.com responded with code
NXDOMAIN
Domain name not found: acp.example.com
Reporting-MTA: dns; googlemail.com
Received-From-MTA: dns; [email protected]
Arrival-Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2020 13:34:44 -0700 (PDT)
X-Original-Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Final-Recipient: rfc822;
rfcSELF+fd89b714F3db00000200000064000000+area51.research@acp.example.com
Action: failed
Status: 4.0.0
Diagnostic-Code: smtp;
DNS Error: 111832 DNS type 'mx' lookup of acp.example.com
responded with code NXDOMAIN
Domain name not found: acp.example.com
Last-Attempt-Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2020 13:34:45 -0700 (PDT)
--- Begin Message ---
Regards
Brian Carpenter
On 24-Jun-20 03:46, Stephen Kent wrote:
> Owen,
>>
>> Being completely pedantic about the RFC5280 text, nowhere in the text does
>> it say that rfc822name cannot be used for anything but email address. It
>> does state multiple times that an email address must be represented as an
>> rfc822name, but places no explicit restrictions on what an rfc822name may
>> represent. The text as is does not explicitly preclude use of rfc822name for
>> ACP. This may be the widespread understanding of what RFC5280 means, but its
>> not strictly what it says…
>>
> Common sense argues against putting something other than an e-mail address in
> the rfc822namem attribute.
>
> I expect ADs to use common sense, as well as careful reading of prior RFCs,
> when making decisions.
Indeed, but that cuts both ways, since running code is our goal. No parser is
in a position to say that
rfcself+fd89b714f3db00000200000064000000+area51.resea...@acp.example.com isn't
an email address.
Brian
>
> Steve
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Anima mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima
>
--- End Message ---
--- End Message ---
_______________________________________________
Anima mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima
