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

"Murray S. Kucherawy" <msk@cloudmark.com> Sun, 15 January 2012 04:30 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 0FFBD21F844F for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 14 Jan 2012 20:30:43 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.581
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.581 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.018, BAYES_00=-2.599, 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 p0hN96TmzNBi for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 14 Jan 2012 20:30:42 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ht1-outbound.cloudmark.com (ht1-outbound.cloudmark.com [72.5.239.25]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8006A21F8449 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Sat, 14 Jan 2012 20:30:42 -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; Sat, 14 Jan 2012 20:30:34 -0800
Received: from EXCH-C2.corp.cloudmark.com ([172.22.1.74]) by malice.corp.cloudmark.com ([172.22.10.71]) with mapi; Sat, 14 Jan 2012 20:30:41 -0800
From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <msk@cloudmark.com>
To: "apps-discuss@ietf.org" <apps-discuss@ietf.org>
Date: Sat, 14 Jan 2012 20:30:43 -0800
Thread-Topic: [apps-discuss] Adoption of draft-kucherawy-received-state?
Thread-Index: AczTF5zorF/YjQkhQqWMLPi5R5O2wQAJqrSA
Message-ID: <F5833273385BB34F99288B3648C4F06F19C6C158A3@EXCH-C2.corp.cloudmark.com>
References: <AD693E95D4252DC3E8F3832F@PST.JCK.COM> <20120114235207.20340.qmail@joyce.lan>
In-Reply-To: <20120114235207.20340.qmail@joyce.lan>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
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 04:30:43 -0000

> -----Original Message-----
> From: apps-discuss-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:apps-discuss-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of John Levine
> Sent: Saturday, January 14, 2012 3:52 PM
> To: apps-discuss@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] Adoption of draft-kucherawy-received-state?
> 
> I see your point, but I'm trying to weigh the relative uglitude of
> adding more clauses in Received: lines against adding yet more trace
> headers.  IANA already has a registry for Additional-registered-clauses
> at http://www.iana.org/assignments/mail-parameters, but as far as I can
> tell, there's no registry of trace headers.

In fact, this was added by RFC5321, and it is this mechanism that this draft is attempting to employ.  So if augmenting Received is a bad idea, I'm left wondering why RFC5321 deliberately enabled it.

-MSK