Re: [apps-discuss] Adoption of draft-kucherawy-received-state?

SM <> Thu, 19 January 2012 00:27 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6F78A11E808C for <>; Wed, 18 Jan 2012 16:27:33 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.633
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.633 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.034, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 686gltu6w4Py for <>; Wed, 18 Jan 2012 16:27:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5C37321F857A for <>; Wed, 18 Jan 2012 16:27:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: from (IDENT:sm@localhost []) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q0J0RNk8021416; Wed, 18 Jan 2012 16:27:26 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple;; s=mail2010; t=1326932848;; bh=9PLPlVhbJLuEaPYBMkumYsG2ujPurCrHbNvAHJ1WJ8g=; h=Message-Id:Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References: Mime-Version:Content-Type; b=Eah6GfmGKBymACfq2vYBxZ83I1VlvezgiYj0sYArmFFyClrVyWmjYdqwni1LD5IcF IrKyeRMcq7htZH0ASd3W1UkYhcIX8+vsfg3jZCEzvbZFVE9nCRfM1Rep2ZtZ8SXXlD 1a16uEpv6b0E642usmMPPDh+Ckdn3acJe//XCwyM=
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple;; s=mail; t=1326932848;; bh=9PLPlVhbJLuEaPYBMkumYsG2ujPurCrHbNvAHJ1WJ8g=; h=Message-Id:Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References: Mime-Version:Content-Type; b=NOPC+wm9ndzJZKQ8tjkF15Hu2GhlFX9NUUIMmboSQxG5SYrOCnCceDSlSJQxAkLJe 8h3i1r/lkQy0bejoJ0DE38UvCdGh5KZ2UYT5QDEc7KurtBQl9KN1nfzzc9yKwkcUzh uHEF6OosQeMxtv4PteWIPbuny0SJiO5fGxHDsQ+4=
Message-Id: <>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version
Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2012 15:58:46 -0800
To: John C Klensin <>
From: SM <>
In-Reply-To: <3EBF175E9FCAA85080916A79@[]>
References: <> <20120115200833.33736.qmail@joyce.lan> <> <3EBF175E9FCAA85080916A79@[]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] 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: Thu, 19 Jan 2012 00:27:33 -0000

Hi John,
At 14:35 18-01-2012, John C Klensin wrote:
>I had a major system failure on Sunday, may have lost some hours
>of email, and, while I got an alternate server up early Monday,

I hope that everything is fine now.

>I have been only only slowly digging out.  The discussion seems
>to have progressed significantly after I dropped out, including
>a couple of new I-Ds.  While I hope those could be consolidated
>to the degree possible, I think the idea of getting these things
>registered is just great.

I sent John Levine the XML.  There may be a few controversies down 
the road as the topic touches both RFC 5321 and 5322.

>fields to try to "correct" them).  The multiple-path FOR form is
>still seen in the wild, despite the security issues and language
>in 5321 deprecating it. If multiple paths or mailboxes are used
>with FOR, the beginning of the [Additional-Registered-Clauses]
>becomes ambiguous, at least in theory.

That was issue #37.

>I have no doubt that Ned, or anyone else even half as competent,
>can sort this out and has implementations that do so.  I believe
>that any MUA that is really as robust as 5322 MUAs are supposed
>to be (indeed required to be to deal with other common erroneous
>practices) can get it right.  But we see intermediate MTAs and
>post-delivery filters trying to check these fields for bogus
>information as part of spam assessments, and some of those are
>not too bright.


I tested the example in draft-kucherawy-received-state with some CPAN 
code and it did not cause any problems.  I don't know the effects on 
legacy code.  I vaguely recall coming across a parser bug a few years 
back when parsing a "Received:" header field inserted by a MTA implementation.