[apps-discuss] regarding draft-ietf-appsawg-received-state
Paul Midgen <pmidge@messagebus.com> Sat, 19 May 2012 07:06 UTC
Return-Path: <pmidge@messagebus.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 D122E21F858E for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 19 May 2012 00:06:01 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.598
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
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 NJeyXmIwCWGF for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 19 May 2012 00:06:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pb0-f44.google.com (mail-pb0-f44.google.com [209.85.160.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 200B921F855A for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Sat, 19 May 2012 00:05:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by pbcwy7 with SMTP id wy7so4939037pbc.31 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Sat, 19 May 2012 00:05:57 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=messagebus.com; s=mail; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject :content-type; bh=o5Y+4RWvj8cD6pvqSL6bIMOUhVBj+KUAuYNBAHuQLqY=; b=PGmuqWIfsV8ZQlC36T3kNe/3+VOfQYYAVKx+fpoRUYQG1OYCmaYA6oLQQfrok8rvoX kN+iqzmVya9aTZ1lqW3y24NjvSh+kodKHHHCVkxq3RmNtv132Zbvay52GzOZbRYtvH6+ yvasYzkYuPtrBw6XSLBc66DMergQm8MUdws7g=
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject :content-type:x-gm-message-state; bh=o5Y+4RWvj8cD6pvqSL6bIMOUhVBj+KUAuYNBAHuQLqY=; b=ff3MVJDYMb4PBgaqVmsYitgQ8sx5/qpDUHcooIodpqsiTugogZxecOOki9dDZbRsuk 8jM4s+nOh8uvhOEd02pt8IrkTKhgVNjrz4NWvsGz/P/sc3qHLYCwzTgALVgL8pCKcJbT 9V3lURrXqo799ZXGNO1TAYU6DncM0lzupMGX+n1Gi50wgmMFx73Zl8o7lZj+UAui8l0v kR6zLekPXcHOEZasbeNm9jR3/BHbnu9Ju3YM0FWmU/e8/jXWySJZCSIc8UFZlJqXqyrp 5IfSRtNTF9zSnpfxNqzT+Zgxp82sKqZebkk6FvkT328XI/bCxXDBqMRLAt1TmR+392dP Qdhw==
Received: by 10.68.235.102 with SMTP id ul6mr16126769pbc.152.1337411157790; Sat, 19 May 2012 00:05:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from percival.pmidge.com (c-174-62-77-111.hsd1.ca.comcast.net. [174.62.77.111]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id og6sm15405792pbb.42.2012.05.19.00.05.56 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Sat, 19 May 2012 00:05:57 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <4FB74654.8070609@messagebus.com>
Date: Sat, 19 May 2012 00:05:56 -0700
From: Paul Midgen <pmidge@messagebus.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; rv:12.0) Gecko/20120428 Thunderbird/12.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: apps-discuss@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------090302020809050407050703"
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnNGJzI3WinmfKVfH6T7T2Ne6HC8wZ3cEf0HA3dyisOPhI075gjvDxaXPNJo0A0NmWh4xxq
Subject: [apps-discuss] regarding draft-ietf-appsawg-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: Sat, 19 May 2012 07:06:01 -0000
Hi all, I'm writing in support of publication ofhttps://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-appsawg-received-state. From 2009-2012 I was responsible for all inbound email delivery and anti-abuse functions at Hotmail, and on numerous occasions was called on by internal product and legal folks, external law enforcement, other mailbox providers and countless other senders and receivers to figure out why an email didn't immediately transit from sender to recipient. Received headers were a good debugging tool but didn't provide much satisfaction in terms of "why", just "where". Adding a state field would seem to help that problem if sufficient folks adopted it, so I'd like to see a standardized guideline published in support of that. Regards, Paul