At 3:03 PM -0500 2/10/05, Bruce Lilly wrote:
On Thu February 10 2005 10:42, Nathaniel Borenstein wrote:On Jan 29, 2005, at 10:56 PM, Bruce Lilly wrote:
> Q: Is there a list of changes from RFC 2476? [As the request is to > advance to Draft status, it would be nice to know if any changes > are of such scope and substance as to warrant remaining at > Proposed. Such a list would also aid reviewers, to ensure that > some subtle change is not overlooked.]
I don't have an exhaustive list, but the key change that led me to originally request an update to this RFC can be found in Section 4.3:
> 4.3. Require Authentication > > The MSA MUST issue an error response to the MAIL FROM command if > the > session has not been authenticated using [SMTP-AUTH], unless it has > already independently established authentication or authorization > (such as being within a protected subnetwork).
The idea here is to establish that port 587 submission ALWAYS requires authentication. By differentiating it in this way from port 25, the hope is that ISP's who block port 25 will not feel a similar need to block port 587, thus streamlining the configuration of message submission for roaming but authenticated users. -- Nathaniel
There are some differences between what the draft says and that description: 1. the draft explicitly permits operation on port 25 2. the draft section 4.3 doesn't mention port.
Specifically regarding the 4.3 MUST quoted above and the reply code, and the necessary two independent implementations required for advancement to Draft Standard status, do the implementations supporting the request to advance to Draft in fact unconditionally require authorization (i.e. independent of whether port 25 or 587 is used, and regardless of administrative configuration other than specifying that the implementation is to act as an MSA), and reply with code 530 (unspecified extended response code) if authorization is lacking?
Both the draft and RFC 2476 allow submission to use 25 instead of 587, but state that "normally" 587 is used, and allow 25 to be used in order to accommodate implementations that are hard to configure. Both say that port 587 is reserved for submission. So, 587 is the normal case for submission, and 25 is an exceptional case.
Please see the implementation report for the details, but I believe most implementations had various configuration options that allowed them to require authentication or not.
Reply code issues are what I had in mind when asking my question; unfortunately my notes from my initial review of the draft don't specifically indicate what I thought might have changed. A comparison of the draft to RFC 2476 is hampered by minor formatting differences.
However, from my notes on differences between various protocols...
On another matter, admittedly unchanged since RFC 2476, there seem to be some undesirable discrepancies between submission and non-submission ESMTP regarding extended response codes. Draft section 3.4 states that extended status code 5.6.2 means "Bad domain or address", whereas RFC 3463 assigns that code the semantics "Conversion required and prohibited" [RFC 3463 section 3.7]. The corresponding RFC 3463 extended response code for domain/address issues would be in the 5.1.XXX range [RFC 3463 section 3.2]. The draft specifies (sect. 5.1) use of 5.6.2 with 554 for message header field address issues when an error is reported after DATA. SMTP (RFC 2821) does not require examination of message header address field content except in the particular case of a gateway [RFC 2821 section 3.8]. If the intent is that MSAs are always to be considered to be gateways, then the draft should explicitly say so (the term "gateway" does not appear anywhere in the draft). [that would be a novel use of the term "gateway" in Internet mail; a gateway usually has one side in a non-SMTP environment] Conversely, if MSAs are not always to be considered as gateways, then returning errors in response to message content is: 1. explicitly counter to the SHOULD NOT of RFC 2821 section 3.4 (bottom of page 18) 2. inappropriately associated with "conversion" semantics where no conversion is in fact required (indeed, other than adding trace fields, tinkering with message data by non-gateway SMTP receivers is disallowed [RFC 2821 section 2.3.8]).
It is not the intent of either this draft or RFC 2476 to say that MSAs are always gateways; rather, the intent in both is to recognize the reality that organizations sometimes see a need to examine and potentially modify messages submitted using their servers, and to make a clear distinction between this case, and the examination/modification of messages being relayed.
_______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf