John C Klensin wrote: > Now, if you and a few thousand other people get this > message, I'd claim a reasonable case has been made > that it works s/it/something/ Likely you didn't test EXPN, even if you did you can't tell if it didn't work because EXPN is default disabled or not implemented. The IETF list happily ignored 2821 3.10 and added its List header fields to the header. It would also ignore the same MUST in 2821bis 3.9. For a good test you'd have to send your message from an "IPv6 only" address and account, and ask folks to reply, and report problems in public. You used ns.jck.com as EHLO, that's no test of a domain literal containing NO-WS-CTL or similar oddities. You likely didn't test HELO and a non-trivial reverse path in your message. "Source routing" was deprecated 18 years ago, it's not obvious what happens if somebody still tries (in vain) to use it, is it ignored or does it cause havoc. Your article arrived as MAIL FROM <ietf-bounces@ietf> at GMane, I can guess why this was accepted as "originator (as indicated by the reverse-path)", but 2821bis doesn't explain (1) why this is not more specified as in RFC 821, (2) why it's a crucial decision where geting it wrong is no option, and (3) why it's not more exactly the same situation as 1989 when RFC 1123 was published. "Better than 2821" and "good enough for DS" are unrelated concepts. Just because nobody uses 821 anymore (because 1123 rendered it useless) doesn't prove that the design of 821 was wrong, or that the 1123 design inherited by 2821bs was "better". And the utter contempt for mail standards demonstrated by the approach to promote them without a proper WG is sad. 2821bis only demonstrates one thing, *never ever again*, all wannabe-improvements of the standards process based on this experience are dead on arrival. Frank _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf