Re: [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC5322 (3400)

> Conclusions:

> 1. It seems reasonable to add an erratum to 5322 recommending that
> messages, as originated, end in CRLF, unless it is known that the
> message can be transmitted from sender-to-recipient without loss of full
> binary transparency.

> (Note that there are lots of things that are perfectly valid according
> to 5322 which are unlikely to work well in practice, and which would
> probably also be recommended against if anyone took the trouble to try
> to identify them and file errata for them.)

It's not an unreasonable change but it it does not, as I understand the current
rules, rise to the level of calling for an erratum.

> 2. It's reasonable, during mail submission only, for a submission server
> or MTA to EITHER adapt a message that doesn't end in CRLF so that it
> does, OR bounce the message, according to local policy.   But as far as
> SMTP is concerned, this is only relevant if BDAT is used to submit the
> message.   So it's really not in scope for RFC 5321.

> 3. When relaying mail (past the first hop), the issue comes up only when
> either BDAT or a nonstandard protocol or protocol extension are used.
> So again, it's not in scope for 5321.

> 4. It might be worthwhile to examine RFC 3030 for errata along these lines.

It might be possible to construct an errata there, but I doubt it. I think
a revision is really needed to fix this. But that raises the question of
whether or not it's worth it, which I also doubt.

				Ned
_______________________________________________
ietf-822 mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-822