Re: [apps-discuss] Adoption of draft-kucherawy-received-state?
John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com> Wed, 18 January 2012 22:35 UTC
Return-Path: <john-ietf@jck.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 5817811E80B0 for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 18 Jan 2012 14:35:19 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[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 DavSeNghV9uD for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 18 Jan 2012 14:35:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: from bsa2.jck.com (bsa2.jck.com [70.88.254.51]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B1ADB11E80A2 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Wed, 18 Jan 2012 14:35:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost ([::1]) by bsa2.jck.com with esmtp (Exim 4.71 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <john-ietf@jck.com>) id 1Rne2g-0007te-TN for apps-discuss@ietf.org; Wed, 18 Jan 2012 17:31:42 -0500
X-Vipre-Scanned: 0815DE89002C310815DFD6-TDI
Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2012 17:35:17 -0500
From: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>
To: apps-discuss@ietf.org
Message-ID: <3EBF175E9FCAA85080916A79@[192.168.1.128]>
In-Reply-To: <01OAUJAX2HRI000HW1@mauve.mrochek.com>
References: <01OAT5KFXSHA000HW1@mauve.mrochek.com> <20120115200833.33736.qmail@joyce.lan> <01OAUJAX2HRI000HW1@mauve.mrochek.com>
X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Win32)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
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: Wed, 18 Jan 2012 22:35:19 -0000
Hi. 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 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. It may still be worth clarifying the point/suggestion I was trying to make. First, my concern was that loading too much disparate information into "Received:", and especially intermixing post-delivery MUA information with in transit MTA information might not be a sufficiently good idea that we should do it automatically and without thinking. I didn't say "don't do it", especially wrt this specific proposal. I did suggest that it was worth examining the question. Second, please remember that, while RFC 5321 requires RFC 5322-conforming date-time fields, the <daytime> production of RFC 821 is a little different. The 821 syntax is not quite a proper subset of the 5321/5322 syntax (e.g., seconds are required in 821 and not in 5321/5322, 821 permitted two-digit years, etc.). Both 821 and 5321 require that both FROM and BY appear, but I've seen that rule broken innumerable times. 5321 permits "TCP-info" to be supplied as a comment to BY (in <Extended-domain>); 821 does not. I've also seen liberties taken with the specific format of the <date-time> (or <datetime>) fields, especially by systems on the other side of gateways that, e.g., use ISO dates (both 821 and 5321 warn against (5321 says "MUST NOT") later systems messing with those 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. 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. So what I was suggesting, and continue to suggest, is that it may be time to think about whether it is better to keep adding fields to "Received:" or whether one or more additional header fields are in order. Clearly the disadvantage of additional ones is that something that treats anything appearing between the first and last "Received:" header fields other than more of them as bogus would get into trouble. The advantage is that something that wants to find one of these things for processing purposes would know exactly where to look, rather than having to parse "Received:" fields, looking for the relevant information, and trusting that someone hasn't used the same <Additional-Registered-Clauses> for something else (despite the SHOULD NOT) in 5321 Section 4.4). If we concluded that additional header fields, with different names, were appropriate, it might still be the case that the current "received-state" proposal would belong within "Received:". I'm just suggesting that we ask the question. john
- [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