Re: [apps-discuss] Trace headers, was Adoption of draft-kucherawy-received-state?

"John R. Levine" <> Sun, 15 January 2012 03:55 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id DD32121F8493 for <>; Sat, 14 Jan 2012 19:55:07 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.36
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.36 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.240, BAYES_00=-2.599, NO_RELAYS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id FupRSPpciWn9 for <>; Sat, 14 Jan 2012 19:55:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126:0:4c:6569:6c61]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9E2F321F8492 for <>; Sat, 14 Jan 2012 19:55:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: (qmail 76549 invoked from network); 15 Jan 2012 03:55:01 -0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple;; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:content-type:vbr-info:user-agent:cleverness; s=12b04.4f124e15.k1201; bh=QfVKvTz4oHJE4aOvU2CfCyZUSfFPdeLuvIodQwXRAMc=; b=ob/Dfusfk6R0jI2JjORuMhhvtEJYeuyx2qqbHIs3bCg6OW3X3m90zyL/uXZ4NiP/yopTsHr8UWOeVm/t/vcK1wRj+b8HWtfc21OimWMigttkQnx9efiugyaxvvpdWeRyE6H/n8bpF0NvWUCXTpxYI1By+wwFKbFq27AFwz77ATs=
VBR-Info:; mc=all;
Received: (ofmipd with (DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA encrypted) SMTP; 15 Jan 2012 03:54:39 -0000
Date: 14 Jan 2012 22:55:01 -0500
Message-ID: <alpine.BSF.2.00.1201142235000.1943@joyce.lan>
From: "John R. Levine" <>
To: "John C Klensin" <>
In-Reply-To: <61D306C70A44794D8930CCB6@PST.JCK.COM>
References: <20120114235207.20340.qmail@joyce.lan> <61D306C70A44794D8930CCB6@PST.JCK.COM>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (BSF 1167 2008-08-23)
Cleverness: None detected
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] Trace headers, was Adoption of draft-kucherawy-received-state?
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 15 Jan 2012 03:55:08 -0000

>>, but as far as
>> I can tell, there's no registry of trace headers.
> There is no registry of trace headers because there are, and
> have been since RFC 821, only two of them: "Received:" and
> "Return-path:".

If you believe what the RFCs say, there are many more trace headers than 
those two.  RFC 5322 makes a special case of Resent-foo: fields, but they 
act an awful lot like trace headers.  RFC 5451 says that 
Authentication-Results "should be treated as a Trace Field."  RFC 5436 
says "The 'Auto-Submitted' header field is considered a 'trace field'". 
RFC 4408 says that "The Received-SPF header field is a trace field."  RFC 
5518 says "VBR-Info is a 'trace header field'". That horse left the barn a 
long time ago. RFC 5537 also lists a bunch of trace fields for usenet, 
which isn't mail, but it might be a good idea to reserve them to avoid 

>  I'm suggesting that the time may have come to
> add one or more rather than continuing to overload "Received:".

It's certainly time for a trace field registry.  And I suppose that if we
have one, adding new trace fields isn't that big a deal.