Re: Comments on Malformed Message BCP draft

This whole discussion makes me think what we are really doing is changing 2822 to make these messages "well formed."

Is that the intent?

On Apr 18, 2011, at 8:08 AM, Tony Finch wrote:

> Dave Cridland <[email protected]> wrote:
>> 
>> It may be that the discussion suggests rejecting, in which case I suggest the
>> document should clearly explain why, and what the implications of not doing so
>> are, beyond "it makes some problems harder to diagnose".
> 
> It does not make sense to have a uniform policy for dealing with corrupt
> messages. Some kinds of corruption are caused by common legitimate
> software, in which case you will want to treat it leniently; others are
> caused by malware or rare kinds of incompetence, in which case it makes
> more sense to reject. You can only determine which is which based on
> operational experience, and the least-worst response changes from time to
> time.
> 
> Tony.
> -- 
> f.anthony.n.finch  <[email protected]>  http://dotat.at/
> Rockall, Malin, Hebrides: South 5 to 7, occasionally gale 8 at first in
> Rockall and Malin, veering west or northwest 4 or 5, then backing southwest 5
> or 6 later. Rough or very rough. Occasional rain. Moderate or good,
> occasionally poor.
> _______________________________________________
> apps-discuss mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss

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