6 ms·
The official definition of SHOULD per RFC2119: 3. SHOULD This word, or the adjective "RECOMMENDED", mean that there may exist valid reasons in particu
by ale42 8mo ago
The official definition of SHOULD per RFC2119:
3. SHOULD This word, or the adjective "RECOMMENDED", mean that there
may exist valid reasons in particular circumstances to ignore a
particular item, but the full implications must be understood and
carefully weighed before choosing a different course.
Not sure how the people at Google interpreted this about the message-id
- Juliate 8mo agoFor producers, ignoring a SHOULD is riskier because it shifts the burden to every consumer. For consumers, ignoring a SHOULD mostly affects their own robustness. But here Google seems to understand it as a MUST... maybe the scale of spam is enough to justify it. Users are stuck between two parties that expect the other to behave.
- zer00eyz 8mo ago> maybe the scale of spam is enough to justify it. This is 100 percent the case, and why these things are this way. If you wanted to make email two point oh, I dont think it would look a lot like what we have today.
- DANmode 8mo agohttps://jmap.io https://jmap.io
- tracker1 8mo agojmap is the communication between a mail client and shared directory/mail services on a server. It does not include server to server communications (that I am aware of) for sending mail to other users/servers.
- DANmode 8mo agoCouldn’t resist replying to: > If you wanted to make email two point oh, I dont think it would look a lot like what we have today.
- tracker1 8mo agoI think a mail 2.0 would be notify and pull based.... you notify a recipient's mail server that there's a message from <address> for them, then that server connects to the MX of record for the domain of <address> and retrieves <message-id> message. Would this make mass emails and spam harder, absolutely. Would it be a huge burden for actual communications with people, not so much. From there actual white/black listing processes would work all that much better.
- eli 8mo agoIs the idea that you could decide from the envelope whether you want to even bother fetching the message? Besides that I'm not sure I see the advantage
- tracker1 8mo agoYou have to have a working mail server attached to a domain to be able to send mail... that's the big part. Right now, email can more or less come to anywhere from anywhere as anyone. There are extensions for signing connections, tls, etc... but in general SMTP at it's core is pretty open and there have been efforts to close this. It would simply close the loop and push the burden of the messages onto the sender's system mostly. And yes, you can decide from the envelope, and a higher chance of envelope validity.
- eli 8mo agoLike it proves you have the ability to receive mail at the domain you're sending from? I feel like SPF/DKIM already does this
- tracker1 8mo agoSPF doesn't prove that... I can send through SendGrid with an SPF record, doesn't mean I've got a server configured to receive mail... for that matter, it actually makes it so you HAVE to be responsible for the mail system and cannot outsource sending separately from receiving. Again, shifting the burden enough to where other measures of dealing with bad actors are more effective.
- pyrale 8mo ago> This is 100 percent the case, and why these things are this way. But gmail accepts emails without message-id on personal mailboxes apparently.
- citrin_ru 8mo agoYou can argue that you not obligated to use message-id but if you don't use it you should blame only yourself that your messages are not accepted. In requiring message-id I would side with google (though in general I think they anti-spam is too aggressive and lacks ways to report false positives). Full RFC compliance (as in not only MUST but also SHOULD unless you have a very good reason) is the easiest part of making sure your emails will be delivered.
- pilif 8mo agoOn the other hand, by erroneously treating a SHOULD as a MUST, I would say that Google is the one who's not RFC-compliant
- deleted 8mo ago[deleted]
- FactolSarin 8mo agoGoogle is rejecting it to ensure incoming messages aren't spam. SHOULD means "you should do this unless you have a really, really good reason not to." Do they have a good reason not to? It doesn't seem so, meaning Viva is in the wrong here.
- davoneus 8mo agoNo, SHOULD is defined in the RFC, not by colloquial usage. Google is on the wrong, regardless of their "safety" intent. After all, linguistics is full with examples of words that are spelled the same, but have different meaning in different cultures. I'm glad the RFC spelled it out it for everyone.
- ragall 8mo agoThe RFC says a SHOULD is to be treated like a MUST, but well-justified exceptions are allowed.
- jacquesm 8mo agoGoogle interpreted it that way because it drives more people to use gmail.
- eli 8mo agoYou assume that internet standards are prescriptivist; that the document describes how it is to be implemented. In practice it's often descriptivist, with the standards documents playing catch-up with how things are actually going in practice. Anyway, in general you can expect that doing unusual but technically valid things with email headers will very often get your messages rejected or filtered as spam.
- psychoslave 8mo agoStandards are definitely prescriptive. But just like a medical prescription, it doesn’t ensure that actors in the wild will conform to what’s prescribed. People will not follow prescriptions for whatever reason, willingly or otherwise. It doesn’t mean the document wasn’t prescriptive.