From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Tom Rymes To: development@lists.ipfire.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] dma: Update to 0.13 Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2021 18:41:43 -0500 Message-ID: <8F74DF7B-E8A9-42F5-972E-FC89FAA8C93D@rymes.net> In-Reply-To: <1b18ad6c-0d19-0c4c-47a1-9a10728a69a0@ipfire.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============1523488215610898203==" List-Id: --===============1523488215610898203== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Jan 28, 2021, at 5:54 PM, Adolf Belka wrote: >=20 > Hi Peter & * >=20 > On 28/01/2021 21:36, Peter M=C3=BCller wrote: [snip] >> 4. Change RCPT TO to split up multiple addresses >> The latter is especially - um - interesting as the full commit message (av= ailable online at >> https://github.com/corecode/dma/commit/450d4b68d3295d2ef50fa5c9576f5c4e043= c0c80) states: >>> RFC5321 section 4.1.1.3 states that RCPT TO only takes one address at a t= ime. > That does sound a bit fundamental to have been missed previously but then t= his software is also a long way from version 1.0. It's taken 10 years to get = from V0.1 V0.13 >> Seriously?! Not even an MTA programmer is reading most basic mail RFCs any= more?!?! >> Yes, DMA might be a lightweight replacement for Postfix on machines just n= eeding a better smarthost. >> However, the commit above means DMA behaved RFC-ignorant as soon as a mess= age had more than one >> recipient - which apparently does not seem to happen that often to DMA use= rs. >> RFC 5321 is not about rocket science or some exotic corner cases at all, i= t is one of the most basic >> internet standards regarding e-mail communication. We have lost the comple= xity battle years ago, >> apparently, we cannot count on application programmers to have a slightest= clue about what they are >> doing as well. >> I am shocked about the quality of that piece of software. >> Embittered, >> Peter M=C3=BCller [snip] I have run Communicate Pro as our MTA for years, and it has a tendency to be = RFC compliant to a fault, even occasionally breaking interactions with other = widely available mail servers ([cough] Exchange [cough]) when those mail serv= ers are not 100% compliant, and I can say that it doesn=E2=80=99t surprise me= that this sort of thing would be out there. I suspect that most servers acce= pt the mail when submitted the way that dma has been doing it up to now, but = someone found a particular piece of software that refused to accept messages = with multiple recipients because that is not RFC compliant, necessitating the= fix. At least the silver lining here is that they have identified and fixed the pr= oblem. Tom --===============1523488215610898203==--