Re: draft-crocker-email-deliveredto

On 8/1/2021 8:08 PM, John R Levine wrote:
>>     3. Documenting prior use adds the challenges of getting the fact 
>> precise and correct in that history lesson.  Why is that needed here?
> 
> See above.  The draft describes loop breaking as though it's 
> hypothetical, which it is not.

...

On 8/2/2021 11:22 AM, John Levine wrote:
 > On further thought, this experiment makes no sense.

...

On 8/3/2021 9:24 AM, John Levine wrote:
> It appears that Viktor Dukhovni<[email protected]>  said:
>> The "Delivered-To" address is an internal representation of the
>> target mailbox (for loop detection), and is not intended for
>> consumption by MUAs or tools like fetchmail.
> This is a key point.  The experiment draft doesn't match current
> practice, and would at best lead to needlessly incompatible MTAs.


Folks,

These summary assessments have, so far, not included the technical 
detail that can permit analysis and discussion by the rest of us.

John has declined to offer the detail that justifies his conclusions.

I'm hoping others can and will provide technical information that 
permits evaluating the draft further.

Viktor's reference to 'internal representation' sounds intriguing, but 
a) I don't know what it means specifically, and b) it doesn't indicate 
what might need changing in the current draft.

Comments?


d/
-- 
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net

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