Earlier quoted context omitted.
User is clearly mentally disturbed. Read his other comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46992022 Social network is not good for the poor guy. I already regret replying to him in the first place but I cannot delete.
WTF you talking about? Rene, this is defamation and I'm probably going to take action because honestly, enough is enough. I'm fed up of folk like you who lack basic technical knowledge or any knowledge making up bullshit. Your hourly rate makes me like you have money to take.
Major European payment processor can't send email to Google Workspace users
291–300 of 443 posts
Re: Major European payment processor can't send email to Google Workspace users
#292Earlier quoted context omitted.
RFC language is expmicltly defined in 2119[0]. Any other interpretation is incorrect. [0] https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2119
Thank you for that. So should is optional, people!
SHOULD - Should really be there. It's not MUST, you can ignore it but do not come crying if your email is not delivered to some of your customers ! you should have though about that before.
Re: Major European payment processor can't send email to Google Workspace users
#293> Viva.com's outgoing verification emails lack a Message-ID header, a requirement that has been part of the Internet Message Format specification (RFC 5322) since 2008 > ... > `Message-ID` is one of the most basic required headers in email. Section 3.6. of the RFC in question ( https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc5322.html ) says: +----------------+--------+------------+----------------------------+ | Field | Min | Max…
2. You can't really implement mail stuff just based on RFCs:
- There docent overlapping RFCs which can sometimes influence each other and many of them obsolete older versions why others still relevant RFCs reference this older versions. This makes it hard to even know what actually is required/recommendation.
- Then you have a lot of "irrelevant" parts, which where standardized but are hardly supported/if at all. You probably should somewhat support them as recipient but should never produce them as sender today (mostly stuff related to pro-"everything is utf8" days). Like in general the ideas of "how mail should probably work" in old RFCs and "how it is done IRL today" are in some aspects _very_ far away.
- Lastly RFCs are not sufficient by themself. They don't cover large parts of the system for "spam detection/suspicious mail rejection". So it's a must have to go to the support pages of all large mail providers and read through what they expect of mails. And "automated mails need a message id" is a pretty common requirement. In addition you have to e.g. make sure the domain you use isn't black listed (e.g. due to behavior of a previous user), and that your servers IP addresses aren't black listed (they never should be black listed long term, but happens anyway, and e.g. MS has based on very questionable excuses "conveniently" black listed smaller local data center competition while also being one of the most widely used providers for commercial mail in that area).
Re: Major European payment processor can't send email to Google Workspace users
#294Earlier quoted context omitted.
> If the client SHOULD do something and doesn't, and your server does not know why, you SHOULD disconnect and move on. That is not a rule. In this situation the server can reject any message if it wants to, and not doing a SHOULD tests the server's patience, but it's still ultimately in the "server wanted to" category, not the "RFC was violated" category.
[flagged]
And the line of yours I quoted is still not supported by anything.
Re: Major European payment processor can't send email to Google Workspace users
#295Earlier quoted context omitted.
Maybe the standards documents you are used to differ from RFCs, but here is the official language: 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. SHOULD is effectively REQUIRED unless it conflicts with another stan…
I just don't understand how you get from the text you pasted to "required". Nowhere does it say that anything is effectively required. Words have meaning.
Re: Major European payment processor can't send email to Google Workspace users
#296Re: Major European payment processor can't send email to Google Workspace users
#297> Viva.com's outgoing verification emails lack a Message-ID header, a requirement that has been part of the Internet Message Format specification (RFC 5322) since 2008 > ... > `Message-ID` is one of the most basic required headers in email. Section 3.6. of the RFC in question ( https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc5322.html ) says: +----------------+--------+------------+----------------------------+ | Field | Min | Max…
Exactly. Message-ID is not required. An unrelated frustration of mine is that Message-ID really should not be overridden but SES for instance throws away your Message-ID and replaces it with another one :(
Should in most RFCs also mean "do it as long as you don't have a very good technical reason not to do it". Like it's most times a "weak must". And in that case the only reason it isn't must is for backward compatibility with older mail system not used for sending automated mails.
And it is documented if you read any larger mail providers docs about "what to do that my automated mails don't get misclassified as spam". And spam rejection is a whole additional non-standardized layer on top of RFCs anyone working with mail should be aware of. In any decades old non centralized communication system without ever green standards having other "industry standard/de-factor" but not "standardized" requirements is pretty normal btw.
Re: Major European payment processor can't send email to Google Workspace users
#298It used to be said that the reason the Internet evolved so well was because of the basic principle of "be strict when you send, but tolerant when you receive". Clearly Google has forgotten this.
If you are too tolerant then bad or lazy actors will cost you too much.
You end up with the tragedy of the commons called "quirks mode".
Re: Major European payment processor can't send email to Google Workspace users
#299Earlier quoted context omitted.
I just don't understand how you get from the text you pasted to "required". Nowhere does it say that anything is effectively required. Words have meaning.
[flagged]
Those reasons can be anything. Legal, practical, technological, ideaological. You don't know. All you know is not using it is explicitly permitted.
Re: Major European payment processor can't send email to Google Workspace users
#300Earlier quoted context omitted.
SHOULD is a requirement. It means that you have to do it unless you know some specific reason that the requirement doesn't apply in your case. "I don't want to" is not a valid excuse, "I don't see a reason to" isn't either. IIRC this particular rule is a SHOULD because MUAs often send messages without a Message-ID to their submission server, and the submission server adds one if necessary. https://www.rfc-editor.org/…
> SHOULD is a requirement. I once had a job where reading standards documents was my bread and butter. SHOULD is not a requirement. It is a recommendation. For requirements they use SHALL. My team was writing code that was safety related. Bad bugs could mean lives lost. We happily ignored a lot of SHOULDs and were open about it. We did it not because we had a good reason, but because it was convenient. We never justi…