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

Dave CROCKER <> Sun, 15 January 2012 19:54 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id E69BE21F847C for <>; Sun, 15 Jan 2012 11:54:24 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.599
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id QJvKVZlGxa4H for <>; Sun, 15 Jan 2012 11:54:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 57CAB21F8475 for <>; Sun, 15 Jan 2012 11:54:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [] ( []) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q0FJsINg030586 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Sun, 15 Jan 2012 11:54:23 -0800
Message-ID: <>
Date: Sun, 15 Jan 2012 11:54:17 -0800
From: Dave CROCKER <>
Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:8.0) Gecko/20111105 Thunderbird/8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: John C Klensin <>
References: <20120114235207.20340.qmail@joyce.lan> <61D306C70A44794D8930CCB6@PST.JCK.COM> <alpine.BSF.2.00.1201142235000.1943@joyce.lan> <54978B203C73F673C5287DE3@PST.JCK.COM>
In-Reply-To: <54978B203C73F673C5287DE3@PST.JCK.COM>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.0 ( []); Sun, 15 Jan 2012 11:54:24 -0800 (PST)
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 19:54:25 -0000

On 1/15/2012 7:51 AM, John C Klensin wrote:
> This is the sort of disconnect between the specifications about
> SMTP MTAs and the specifications of header fields and their
> names that I mentioned in an earlier note and to which Dave
> Crocker took significant exception.  While I don't want to go on
> a quest for specific language, I believe that, from the MTA

Since I'm cited by name, I'll clarify that what I took exception to were 
assertions of fact that I believe to be wrong and that I asked to see documented.

Unfortunately, anyone can make any claim they feel like making.  Consequently, 
responsible technical discussion means that the making of a claim does indeed 
require someone's doing the work of providing specifics.

Typically, the person making an affirmative assertion of fact carries the 
responsibility for substantiating it.


   Dave Crocker
   Brandenburg InternetWorking