Re: Comments on Malformed Message BCP draft

One might note that the same kind of difficult debate over 'error handling' has been at the root of much controversy in HTML land.



Don't many MTAs actually implement the same "sniffing" for content-type and charset as is being proposed in

http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-websec-mime-sniff-02

It was my impression they did.



Is "wrong content-type" a "malformed message"?



Larry

--

http://larry.masinter.net



-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Murray S. Kucherawy
Sent: Friday, April 15, 2011 3:21 PM
To: Arnt Gulbrandsen
Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] Comments on Malformed Message BCP draft



> -----Original Message-----

> From: Arnt Gulbrandsen [mailto:[email protected]]

> Sent: Friday, April 15, 2011 2:26 PM

> To: Murray S. Kucherawy

> Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]

> Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] Comments on Malformed Message BCP draft

>

> I found the advice rather naïve. Not bad, but also not very

> sophisticated, and I fear that extending it to be comprehensive will not

> produce a readable document.



It's meant only as a starting point.  And I think extending it, if done carefully, will produce something readable and valuable.



> Still, I can see value in a document whose abstract says "here are some

> of the bad things you must expect to receive, and not just from

> spammers". Is that the goal of your draft?



"...and what the consensus view is about what to do with them," precisely.



_______________________________________________

apps-discuss mailing list

[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>

https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss

_______________________________________________
apps-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss