Re: [apps-discuss] Adoption of draft-kucherawy-received-state?
Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it> Sun, 15 January 2012 18:58 UTC
Return-Path: <vesely@tana.it>
X-Original-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1C1E621F8472 for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 15 Jan 2012 10:58:16 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.611
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.611 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.108, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_IT=0.635, HOST_EQ_IT=1.245, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id hDbUsXF-p3L3 for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 15 Jan 2012 10:58:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: from wmail.tana.it (wmail.tana.it [62.94.243.226]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3AF0C21F8442 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Sun, 15 Jan 2012 10:58:15 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=tana.it; s=test; t=1326653893; bh=zq9zVkQsYDClmohiXyKTuXw02esOS+X7AL+gy3UC500=; l=2002; h=Message-ID:Date:From:MIME-Version:To:References:In-Reply-To: Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=Mh2cbUnwVnLjRn1/jtKiTu4KTOMU0AAa3WXsyFKGkYD2oAEM0ZDc8DiG4zN09R0Bi RK8f6PIcVYKli3DXsuU0aBbv3KtuL1LSVmjeeqPhQoZQPSzXxNBiICiXdzb/ERee92 MGYYdK8DTCV8St3E1YLMyqd2cekSl6tX50DjQ8LI=
Received: from [172.25.197.158] (pcale.tana [172.25.197.158]) (AUTH: CRAM-MD5 515, TLS: TLS1.0,256bits,RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1) by wmail.tana.it with ESMTPSA; Sun, 15 Jan 2012 19:58:13 +0100 id 00000000005DC039.000000004F1321C5.00001E58
Message-ID: <4F1321C5.7000807@tana.it>
Date: Sun, 15 Jan 2012 19:58:13 +0100
From: Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:8.0) Gecko/20111105 Thunderbird/8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: apps-discuss@ietf.org
References: <F5833273385BB34F99288B3648C4F06F19C6C15818@EXCH-C2.corp.cloudmark.com> <F5833273385BB34F99288B3648C4F06F19C6C15859@EXCH-C2.corp.cloudmar> <k.com@missing-host.mrochek.com> <AD693E95D4252DC3E8F3832F@PST.JCK.COM> <4F122257.10301@dcrocker.net> <01OAT5KFXSHA000HW1@mauve.mrochek.com>
In-Reply-To: <01OAT5KFXSHA000HW1@mauve.mrochek.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] Adoption of draft-kucherawy-received-state?
X-BeenThere: apps-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols <apps-discuss.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/apps-discuss>
List-Post: <mailto:apps-discuss@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 15 Jan 2012 18:58:16 -0000
On 15/Jan/12 16:53, Ned Freed wrote: > > We have a problem to solve here, and unfortunately all of the > possible solutions have issues. In my judgement out of all the > available options the best is to extend Received:, messy syntax and > all. All of the other options, including but not limited to > additional trace fields, replacing Received: with something else, > replacing Received; while retaining generation of Received; for > backwards compatibility, are even worse. This judgment is difficult to understand, for me at least, without considering an actual alternative. For an example trace field to be paired with "Received:", I'd pick "Sent:". Consider: Received: from mauve.mrochek.com (mauve.mrochek.com [66.59.230.40]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 489FA21F845E; Sun, 15 Jan 2012 08:15:57 -0800 (PST) Sent: to ietfa.amsl.com to-addr 12.22.58.30 to-port 25 by mauve.mrochek.com by-addr 66.59.230.40 by-port 1438 date "Sun, 15 Jan 2012 08:15:57 -0800 (PST)" Received: from dkim-sign.mauve.mrochek.com by mauve.mrochek.com (PMDF V6.1-1 #35243) id <01OAT5KHWWNK000FER@mauve.mrochek.com> for apps-discuss@ietf.org; Sun, 15 Jan 2012 08:15:54 -0800 (PST) ... That "Sent:" field is to be written on the fly, and if the message is rejected (5xx) or delayed (4xx), then the field gets discarded. There is a lot of redundant data. It wastes bandwidth, but can be used to check proper ordering, synchronization, and consistency. The format can be similar and new at the same time. Both fields can be extended, but no coordination between their formats is to be mandated. An advantage of the new field, for the problem at hand, is that it allows to make a final statement rather than forecasting a state. It would be possible to tell this is the 4th attempt in 15 minutes, as after greylisting. > And the worst option is effectively saying that additional trace > information can never be added again. That would really suck. +1.
- [apps-discuss] Adoption of draft-kucherawy-receiv… Murray S. Kucherawy
- Re: [apps-discuss] Adoption of draft-kucherawy-re… Murray S. Kucherawy
- Re: [apps-discuss] Adoption of draft-kucherawy-re… Dave CROCKER
- Re: [apps-discuss] Adoption of draft-kucherawy-re… SM
- Re: [apps-discuss] Adoption of draft-kucherawy-re… John C Klensin
- Re: [apps-discuss] Adoption of draft-kucherawy-re… John Levine
- Re: [apps-discuss] Adoption of draft-kucherawy-re… Dave CROCKER
- Re: [apps-discuss] possibleTrace fields registry Dave CROCKER
- Re: [apps-discuss] Adoption of draft-kucherawy-re… John C Klensin
- Re: [apps-discuss] Adoption of draft-kucherawy-re… Dave CROCKER
- Re: [apps-discuss] Trace headers, was Adoption of… John R. Levine
- Re: [apps-discuss] Adoption of draft-kucherawy-re… Murray S. Kucherawy
- Re: [apps-discuss] Trace headers, was Adoption of… SM
- Re: [apps-discuss] Adoption of draft-kucherawy-re… SM
- Re: [apps-discuss] Trace headers, was Adoption of… John C Klensin
- Re: [apps-discuss] Adoption of draft-kucherawy-re… Ned Freed
- Re: [apps-discuss] Adoption of draft-kucherawy-re… Alessandro Vesely
- [apps-discuss] possibleTrace fields registry Dave CROCKER
- Re: [apps-discuss] Trace headers, was Adoption of… Dave CROCKER
- Re: [apps-discuss] Adoption of draft-kucherawy-re… Ned Freed
- Re: [apps-discuss] Adoption of draft-kucherawy-re… John Levine
- Re: [apps-discuss] Trace headers, was Adoption of… John Levine
- Re: [apps-discuss] possibleTrace fields registry John Levine
- Re: [apps-discuss] Adoption of draft-kucherawy-re… Ned Freed
- Re: [apps-discuss] possibleTrace fields registry Ned Freed
- Re: [apps-discuss] possibleTrace fields registry Dave CROCKER
- Re: [apps-discuss] Adoption of draft-kucherawy-re… Tony Finch
- Re: [apps-discuss] possibleTrace fields registry John Levine
- Re: [apps-discuss] possibleTrace fields registry Ned Freed
- Re: [apps-discuss] possibleTrace fields registry Murray S. Kucherawy
- Re: [apps-discuss] possibleTrace fields registry Dave CROCKER
- Re: [apps-discuss] possibleTrace fields registry Alessandro Vesely
- Re: [apps-discuss] possibleTrace fields registry Nico Williams
- [apps-discuss] Draft for trace fields registry John Levine
- Re: [apps-discuss] Draft for trace fields registry Ned Freed
- Re: [apps-discuss] Draft for trace fields registry S Moonesamy
- Re: [apps-discuss] Draft for trace fields registry Murray S. Kucherawy
- Re: [apps-discuss] Adoption of draft-kucherawy-re… John C Klensin
- Re: [apps-discuss] Adoption of draft-kucherawy-re… Murray S. Kucherawy
- Re: [apps-discuss] Adoption of draft-kucherawy-re… John C Klensin
- Re: [apps-discuss] Adoption of draft-kucherawy-re… SM
- Re: [apps-discuss] Adoption of draft-kucherawy-re… SM
- Re: [apps-discuss] Adoption of draft-kucherawy-re… Ned Freed
- Re: [apps-discuss] Adoption of draft-kucherawy-re… John C Klensin
- [apps-discuss] Stanzas of trace fields, was Adopt… Alessandro Vesely