[apps-discuss] draft-kucherawy-received-state

"Murray S. Kucherawy" <msk@cloudmark.com> Mon, 09 January 2012 22:51 UTC

Return-Path: <msk@cloudmark.com>
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 C69F221F8605 for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 9 Jan 2012 14:51:40 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.574
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.574 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.024, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 NNpxz9feWPam for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 9 Jan 2012 14:51:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ht1-outbound.cloudmark.com (ht1-outbound.cloudmark.com [72.5.239.25]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0B60F21F84A3 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Mon, 9 Jan 2012 14:51:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: from malice.corp.cloudmark.com (172.22.10.71) by EXCH-HTCAS901.corp.cloudmark.com (172.22.10.73) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.355.2; Mon, 9 Jan 2012 14:51:32 -0800
Received: from EXCH-C2.corp.cloudmark.com ([172.22.1.74]) by malice.corp.cloudmark.com ([172.22.10.71]) with mapi; Mon, 9 Jan 2012 14:51:39 -0800
From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <msk@cloudmark.com>
To: "apps-discuss@ietf.org" <apps-discuss@ietf.org>
Date: Mon, 09 Jan 2012 14:51:39 -0800
Thread-Topic: draft-kucherawy-received-state
Thread-Index: AczPIT9QGS1HD3P+QOqbeqR0Yizx3Q==
Message-ID: <F5833273385BB34F99288B3648C4F06F19C6C157BD@EXCH-C2.corp.cloudmark.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_F5833273385BB34F99288B3648C4F06F19C6C157BDEXCHC2corpclo_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: [apps-discuss] 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: Mon, 09 Jan 2012 22:51:40 -0000

Hi all,

Over on ietf-smtp, https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-kucherawy-received-state/ was developed late last year.  This is an optional tweak to email Received fields allowing annotation of entry into special states of mail handling, such as quarantines or hold-for-moderation MLM actions that would help to explain large gaps in timestamp sequences.

I'm looking for a wider audience of reviewers and (hopefully supporters).  If this sort of thing seems like a good (or terrible) idea, please do follow up and comment.

How much and what kind of support is evident will guide the choice of what its next steps are (if any).

Thanks,
-MSK