From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS3215 2.6.0.0/16 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.8 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE,URIBL_CSS,URIBL_CSS_A shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from out1.vger.email (out1.vger.email [IPv6:2620:137:e000::1:20]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4E6441F727 for ; Thu, 30 Jun 2022 21:06:49 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: dcvr.yhbt.net; dkim=pass (1024-bit key; unprotected) header.d=pobox.com header.i=@pobox.com header.b="qFSa4QwC"; dkim-atps=neutral Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S237264AbiF3VDg (ORCPT ); Thu, 30 Jun 2022 17:03:36 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:54840 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S236846AbiF3VD2 (ORCPT ); Thu, 30 Jun 2022 17:03:28 -0400 Received: from pb-smtp21.pobox.com (pb-smtp21.pobox.com [173.228.157.53]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A14E02E08B for ; Thu, 30 Jun 2022 14:03:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pb-smtp21.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp21.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 25F2F1A8DB8; Thu, 30 Jun 2022 17:03:27 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=sasl; bh=Vzh0TXMw0mbC vlmme4wur7fLr+FsPDmjrPJBK5oxlcw=; b=qFSa4QwCBMGSAj5WPWKgScrHh/DV JvU6jRyhHJJTQ9zepNzsRi2B2XD8D6ph3AApdu4PdXmRsr5L+e8mqEhjbYkgy0VQ dTxwZF9UP6y9RuILOkQxDwQ3w+M6al0vFlT47wxLdHtWrvzteVQeYSiHawIZ3Opb BAYyNfcUX8dKJH0= Received: from pb-smtp21.sea.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp21.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1F3E41A8DB7; Thu, 30 Jun 2022 17:03:27 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [34.82.80.254]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp21.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id A6DF71A8DB6; Thu, 30 Jun 2022 17:03:23 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) From: Junio C Hamano To: =?utf-8?B?w4Z2YXIgQXJuZmrDtnLDsA==?= Bjarmason Cc: "brian m. carlson" , Stewart Smith , git@vger.kernel.org, Todd Zullinger Subject: Re: [PATCH] git-send-email: Add --no-validate-email option References: <20220620004427.3586240-1-trawets@amazon.com> <220622.864k0dmzl9.gmgdl@evledraar.gmail.com> <220630.868rpee6d3.gmgdl@evledraar.gmail.com> Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2022 14:03:22 -0700 In-Reply-To: <220630.868rpee6d3.gmgdl@evledraar.gmail.com> (=?utf-8?B?IsOG?= =?utf-8?B?dmFyIEFybmZqw7Zyw7A=?= Bjarmason"'s message of "Thu, 30 Jun 2022 13:18:55 +0200") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.2 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 1420734A-F8B8-11EC-AFB2-CBA7845BAAA9-77302942!pb-smtp21.pobox.com Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org =C3=86var Arnfj=C3=B6r=C3=B0 Bjarmason writes: > I'm suggesting that we replace our own validation with that of the SMTP > server's, yes they're don't 1=3D1 correspond, but I think the part of t= he > Venn diagram of where that matters is too small to worry about. > > It has the advantage of side-stepping issues with not having > Email::Valid, as well as those cases where we're being overzelous about > RFC validation, but our local SMTP is willing to try to deliver the > mail. > > It's not like authors of MTAs haven't heard of that character limit, bu= t > they're also aware that that certain parts of the spec are loosely > enforced, and that trying delivery is often better than rejecting a mai= l > out of RFC pedantry. I am not sure if that is a healthy direction to go. If a local outbound relay is written with the knowledge that it will never be talking to the SMTP at the final mailbox directly, I would expect that it may not implement any validation at all, relying on the "next hop" smarthost to reject anything invalid it throws at it. So...