RFC Errata


Errata Search

 
Source of RFC  
Summary Table Full Records

Found 2 records.

Status: Verified (1)

RFC 5598, "Internet Mail Architecture", July 2009

Source of RFC: IETF - NON WORKING GROUP
Area Assignment: app

Errata ID: 3260
Status: Verified
Type: Editorial
Publication Format(s) : TEXT

Reported By: Murray Kucherawy
Date Reported: 2012-06-15
Verifier Name: Barry Leiba
Date Verified: 2012-06-15

Section 4.3.1 says:

4.3.1. Mail Submission Agent (MSA)


   A Mail Submission Agent (MSA) accepts the message submitted by the
   aMUA and enforces the policies of the hosting ADMD and the
   requirements of Internet standards.

It should say:

4.3.1. Message Submission Agent (MSA)


   A Message Submission Agent (MSA) accepts the message submitted by the
   aMUA and enforces the policies of the hosting ADMD and the
   requirements of Internet standards.

Notes:

The document tends to use "Message" rather than "Mail". However, in the case of the MSA, it uses "Mail" more than "Message".

The document probably needs a pass to ensure consistent use of both terms throughout.

Status: Reported (1)

RFC 5598, "Internet Mail Architecture", July 2009

Source of RFC: IETF - NON WORKING GROUP
Area Assignment: app

Errata ID: 5925
Status: Reported
Type: Technical
Publication Format(s) : TEXT

Reported By: David Crocker
Date Reported: 2019-12-02

Section 1.2 says:

{addition to the end of the section. there might be a better way to handle this, but this is my best guess. Note that this also means that RFC 5598 should also be modified to have the status of updating RFC 5321.}


It should say:

Sections 5.1 and 5.3 of this document supersede Section 3.9 of RFC 5321. 

Notes:

RFC 5598 is intended to document existing email architecture and terminology. It's explicit discussion of aliases and mailing lists represent a community consensus view.

The language in RFC 5321 dates back to RFC 821 and its differences from what is stated in RFC 5598 do /not/ represent a modern view of email architecture, nor should a hop-by-hop transport-like protocol make statements about higher-level, end-to-end services, any more than IP should dictate details for TCP (or SMTP).

Report New Errata