Re: Comments on Malformed Message BCP draft
"Murray S. Kucherawy" <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.apps-discuss,gmane.ietf.rfc822 |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <F5833273385BB34F99288B3648C4F06F1343319E51@EXCH-C2.corp.cloudmark.com> |
> -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Alessandro Vesely > Sent: Friday, April 15, 2011 7:21 AM > To: ietf-822 > Cc: apps-discuss > Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] Comments on Malformed Message BCP draft > > On 15/Apr/11 14:50, Keith Moore wrote: > > I'm strongly opposed to MTAs "fixing" malformed messages (other than > > submission servers fixing a small number of known problems caused by > > broken mail clients). > > +1, standardizing fixes implies a standard status for malformed > messages. The intended status of this document doesn't give any kind of standard status to malformations. It recommends the safest way of handling them if you're in an environment where you have to do so rather than simply rejecting them. And the reality is that we (the industry) usually have to do that, so it seems like a good idea to share the collected wisdom about the best/safest way to do so. The fact that MTAs will do one thing with, for example, malformed MIME and browsers/MUAs do something else is a real problem.