On 2/27/19 3:45 PM, Viktor Dukhovni wrote: > On Tue, Feb 26, 2019 at 03:26:05PM -0800, Jim Fenton wrote: > >>> If a REQUIRETLS message is bounced, the server MUST behave as if >>> RET=HDRS was present as described in [RFC3461]. If both RET=FULL and >>> REQUIRETLS are present, the RET=FULL MUST be disregarded and MAY be >>> transformed to RET=HDRS on relay. The SMTP client for a REQUIRETLS >>> >>> If the MAY is not taken, will the next hop be obligated to detect that this >>> is a bounce and apply the preceding MUSTs? If not, perhaps this also >>> should be a MUST? >> It seems like it should, yes. > Actually, absolutely not. It is not the job of email *relays* to > modify the message content, and they must not be obligated to do > so. Message modifications break DKIM signatures, and require > content processing logic that relays are not expected to support. > > The bounce is constructed as a new message at the server that > encounters the initial delivery problem, it is *only* at *that* > point that the decision can be made to include or exclude the > original message body in the bounce. > Good point; so we should just remove the phrase "and MAY be transformed to RET=HDRS on relay"? It contradicts the previous MUST anyway.
_______________________________________________ Uta mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/uta
