Re: [apps-discuss] APPSDIR review of draft-ietf-marf-authfailure-report-05

Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it> Sun, 04 December 2011 12:49 UTC

Return-Path: <vesely@tana.it>
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 21EB421F8557 for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 4 Dec 2011 04:49:45 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.519
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.519 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.200, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_IT=0.635, HOST_EQ_IT=1.245, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
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 C0PaOBIebbQi for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 4 Dec 2011 04:49:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: from wmail.tana.it (mail.tana.it [62.94.243.226]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5A0CF21F854E for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Sun, 4 Dec 2011 04:49:44 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=tana.it; s=test; t=1323002980; bh=GNccTxPR+TjpnTE076nRwElAeZ6uQQJzoJjrfDX1ZR4=; l=521; h=Message-ID:Date:From:MIME-Version:To:References:In-Reply-To: Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=N+oIVJKhYIkPmLpe0ZwpufT2E8WNNL2K3mmBzKdlwTsvIBXaF0zUSVAzHAhxLzUnP 1PJg+ZP7bHyluJda/ySy/TgGgQTaR7NpNpvX5JvveBDcgJZ+L7m43Y/cfYXdAOF4KE K0WPMd8hBzq19ZhuHz911orAGvSCYK4vt04cUom0=
Received: from [172.25.197.158] (pcale.tana [172.25.197.158]) (AUTH: CRAM-MD5 515, TLS: TLS1.0,256bits,RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1) by wmail.tana.it with ESMTPSA; Sun, 04 Dec 2011 13:49:40 +0100 id 00000000005DC033.000000004EDB6C64.00002621
Message-ID: <4EDB6C64.2000002@tana.it>
Date: Sun, 04 Dec 2011 13:49:40 +0100
From: Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:8.0) Gecko/20111105 Thunderbird/8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: apps-discuss@ietf.org
References: <6.2.5.6.2.20111202075917.09d8d070@elandnews.com>
In-Reply-To: <6.2.5.6.2.20111202075917.09d8d070@elandnews.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] APPSDIR review of draft-ietf-marf-authfailure-report-05
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, 04 Dec 2011 12:49:45 -0000

On 02/Dec/11 20:02, S Moonesamy wrote:
> From the example in Appendix B.1:
> 
>  "Received: from mail.example.com (mail.example.com [192.0.2.1])
>     by mx.example.net (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id c6cs67945pbm;
>     Sat, 8 Oct 2011 13:16:24 +0000 (GMT)
>   Return-Path: feedback@arf.mail.example.net"
> 
> Isn't the Return-Path: mail header inserted before the Received: mail
> headers?

I think neither of those fields has to be exemplified.  Please see
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/marf/current/msg01510.html