IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [apps-discuss] possibleTrace fields registry

"Murray S. Kucherawy" <msk@cloudmark.com> Tue, 17 January 2012 17:33 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 4BD371F0C4E for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 17 Jan 2012 09:33:47 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.582
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.582 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.017, 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 E-QeZesvXfiB for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 17 Jan 2012 09:33:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ht1-outbound.cloudmark.com (ht1-outbound.cloudmark.com [72.5.239.25]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 614401F0C4D for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Tue, 17 Jan 2012 09:33:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: from spite.corp.cloudmark.com (172.22.10.72) by EXCH-HTCAS901.corp.cloudmark.com (172.22.10.73) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.355.2; Tue, 17 Jan 2012 09:33:37 -0800
Received: from EXCH-C2.corp.cloudmark.com ([172.22.1.74]) by spite.corp.cloudmark.com ([172.22.10.72]) with mapi; Tue, 17 Jan 2012 09:33:45 -0800
From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <msk@cloudmark.com>
To: "apps-discuss@ietf.org" <apps-discuss@ietf.org>
Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2012 09:33:44 -0800
Thread-Topic: [apps-discuss] possibleTrace fields registry
Thread-Index: AczVN+Qd4n8QpaMITr61H/ZDHhJ0jQABg97Q
Message-ID: <F5833273385BB34F99288B3648C4F06F19C6C158B7@EXCH-C2.corp.cloudmark.com>
References: <20120115201817.34086.qmail@joyce.lan> <4F15A667.4030708@dcrocker.net>
In-Reply-To: <4F15A667.4030708@dcrocker.net>
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] possibleTrace fields registry
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: Tue, 17 Jan 2012 17:33:47 -0000

> -----Original Message-----
> From: apps-discuss-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:apps-discuss-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Dave CROCKER
> Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2012 8:49 AM
> To: apps-discuss@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] possibleTrace fields registry
> 
> This has been an interesting exercise. I had not previously noticed
> that RFC5321 and RFC5322 have conflicting definitions of 'trace'.
> RFC5321 equates it only to Received.  RFC5322 uses it to describe a
> class of fields.

I don't see this as being a conflict.  RFC5322 defines a trace field in general terms, and RFC5321 discusses one specific instance of a trace field, namely Received, as being the only one SMTP itself cares about.  It doesn't mean there aren't others, but an MTA doesn't do anything special with them (i.e., doesn't add any new ones).

-MSK

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email