Re: [apps-discuss] Pete Resnick's Yes on draft-ietf-appsawg-malformed-mail-10: (with COMMENT)

["Murray S. Kucherawy" <[e-mail]>]

On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 10:23 AM, Murray S. Kucherawy
<[e-mail]>wrote:

>
>  All of this works for me except:
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 2:35 PM, Pete Resnick<[e-mail]
>>>> >wrote:
>>>>
>>>>  4 - It seems worth pointing out somewhere in this section that the
>>>>> prepending of Received fields is the safest thing to do if changes must
>>>>> be made to the message to pass information between modules.
>>>>>
>>>>
>> Your new text says:
>>
>>    Where a change to content between modules is unavoidable, adding
>>    trace data (such as prepending a standard Received field) will at
>>    least allow tracing of the handling by modules that actually see
>>    different input.
>>
>> I think this is misplaced, and I think you missed the point. Your
>> paragraph seems to say you *want* to insert trace data, and that prepending
>> Received fields is one way to do it. I think the main point of the section
>> is generally correct: You *don't* want to be adding trace data. What I
>> meant for you to add was that, if you do need to add trace data, then the
>> *only* recommended way to do it is to prepend Received fields. I would
>> change the paragraph to:
>>
>>    Where a change to content between modules is unavoidable, for example
>>    to add trace data, the safest way to do so is to prepend Received
>>    fields with the appropriate information.
>>
>> And I'd move it right after paragraph 2.
>
>
Understood, but I think yours implies that one would change content
specifically to add trace data, and not for some other reason.  What I'm
talking about is the capabilities of the modules to hand data among
themselves without having to modify the content itself; if for some reason
that's simply not possible, then at least make it look like a hop occurred
by adding trace data.

So how about:

Where a change to content between modules is unavoidable, it is a good idea
to add standard trace data to indicate a "visible" handoff between modules
has occurred.  The only advisable way to do this is to prepend Received
fields with the appropriate information, as described in Section 3.6.7 of
[MAIL].

Will make Ned's proposed change as well.  Here's a diff from -10 (which the
IESG approved) to a proposed -12, which incorporates everything to date,
including the above:

http://www.blackops.org/~msk/draft-ietf-appsawg-malformed-mail-from--10.diff.html

-MSK