IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Emailcore] Issue #76: IANA registries for Received clauses: values for VIA and WITH and additional clauses

John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> Sun, 27 November 2022 18:35 UTC

Return-Path: <johnl@iecc.com>
X-Original-To: emailcore@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: emailcore@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DC522C14CEE5 for <emailcore@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 27 Nov 2022 10:35:09 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.847
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.847 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.25, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=iecc.com header.b=LLaVO/te; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=taugh.com header.b=iCY+tnb1
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id aHNVql61w16e for <emailcore@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 27 Nov 2022 10:35:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: from gal.iecc.com (gal.iecc.com [IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126:0:43:6f73:7461]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 07162C14CEE6 for <emailcore@ietf.org>; Sun, 27 Nov 2022 10:35:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: (qmail 71153 invoked from network); 27 Nov 2022 18:34:55 -0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=iecc.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:cleverness; s=115ef.6383adcf.k2211; bh=rFmLfv7tTNoVMM6wLnlw77NCNoGZYwI0N9/0anR6Hr4=; b=LLaVO/teh6NpfQ+QnhUZhjPQYieg4s/KqA3wOb/28MlBStPpvSwnPm/GkBjJCNCWUCnt7247QG4rjWFCL55xCXZQjKcDZ2/S7A0SwevtQ7xLF1Mrvjg8l6A2hEBA6WsxsK3lVstDAuOqk5TUtASpaTiZzwyZD7i3hBwxY07T+EsbzjzDj4QpcHO30zHlQIWzyY1wAj61YpQsKil4+mhRb5b3HENBiGa5kXZHKW6bfmQn5c7N1LllN6R6KoPcVCqHfa8jA3DFANM/mZC6sU4txwWXT8I79a7Hck+NVQiqMnYrn9yqGhPRosLs6Zu4eW3XS3CfE7fmemSxp62ehkGwqw==
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=taugh.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:cleverness; s=115ef.6383adcf.k2211; bh=rFmLfv7tTNoVMM6wLnlw77NCNoGZYwI0N9/0anR6Hr4=; b=iCY+tnb13Dta01bQXSl1m4IbUNpFNcCiy7fSWGENDMv5XpZb5Bdbp+LPbFk3WNENPRl8hDaOPUVA68QU4iysZ0kgsb4KfGtq4P6qBnvB6mIcFmqaSS3PdLE/UNU6ZPQbD/wpg5u892YcrBKVGk8WrTnF/1sOP8PaCKU1l6IHPbHgk6wKnG/nehd8H6GtSSiew9TiYIzWV7BOqob6+HeSgDG+6jlQADASp3hbO3P000XGAOy1K+JpI4VjTNjZjWzuy2ipBkpLybU1ZMxSvqUTpKYSlKRmKMtARD3y96Py8vYN+uSM2R07CGjRJuHdJuTHN8Aie6Caek5IYI1PZOd1SA==
Received: from ary.qy ([IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126::78:696d:6170]) by imap.iecc.com ([IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126::78:696d:6170]) with ESMTPS (TLS1.3 ECDHE-RSA AES-256-GCM AEAD) via TCP6; 27 Nov 2022 18:34:54 -0000
Received: by ary.qy (Postfix, from userid 501) id 36F4C4FF4D50; Sun, 27 Nov 2022 13:34:53 -0500 (EST)
Date: Sun, 27 Nov 2022 13:34:53 -0500
Message-Id: <20221127183454.36F4C4FF4D50@ary.qy>
From: John Levine <johnl@taugh.com>
To: emailcore@ietf.org
Cc: john-ietf@jck.com
In-Reply-To: <C8972168992054AF3269BD2A@PSB>
Organization: Taughannock Networks
X-Headerized: yes
Cleverness: minimal
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-transfer-encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/emailcore/JEgnHty7YBiu7ioj_uKkjJ4sgcM>
Subject: Re: [Emailcore] Issue #76: IANA registries for Received clauses: values for VIA and WITH and additional clauses
X-BeenThere: emailcore@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: EMAILCORE proposed working group list <emailcore.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/emailcore>, <mailto:emailcore-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/emailcore/>
List-Post: <mailto:emailcore@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:emailcore-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/emailcore>, <mailto:emailcore-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 27 Nov 2022 18:35:09 -0000

It appears that John C Klensin  <john-ietf@jck.com> said:
>The general problem is that, if those fields are supposed to
>provide useful trace information, there should be very precise,
>probably community-vetted -- beyond "probably ok to publish
>this"-- descriptions of what the fields mean.  Tampering with
>the clauses in a header field that is in heavy use and supposed
>to be well-defined seems to me to be in a whole different
>category than, e.g., adding a new, maybe vanity, header field
>that is easily ignored if not understood.  ...

While I would like to live in a world where we can control what
people put in their Received: headers, that's not the world we
live in.

The issue here is exactly the same as the one with header fields, with
a choice between undocumented crud and documented crud. Look at any
mail from the vicinity of Redmond WA for endless examples of the
former. Or look at header parsing code in applications like
spamassassin to see all of the heuristics you have to use.

While we can encourage people to design and document their extensions
well, we can't force them to do anything and all the same arguments
apply that tell us that while docmented good stuff is the ideal,
documented crud is better than the likely alternative.

R's,
John

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email