Re: [ietf-smtp] Curious, with this now being associated to emailcore, should list name change?

John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> Mon, 20 July 2020 18:27 UTC

Return-Path: <johnl@iecc.com>
X-Original-To: ietf-smtp@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf-smtp@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 568F73A0DC6 for <ietf-smtp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 20 Jul 2020 11:27:04 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.099
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.099 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=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1536-bit key) header.d=iecc.com header.b=b6FRtGH1; dkim=pass (1536-bit key) header.d=taugh.com header.b=tYqo4Hku
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id iIVAvJt9GmR6 for <ietf-smtp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 20 Jul 2020 11:27:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from gal.iecc.com (gal.iecc.com [IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126:0:43:6f73:7461]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9E8C43A0DC5 for <ietf-smtp@ietf.org>; Mon, 20 Jul 2020 11:27:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 85468 invoked from network); 20 Jul 2020 18:27:00 -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; s=14dd8.5f15e1f4.k2007; bh=B9rGLBvBeaD4mgSS5HZhyg537YtPkDw9GUbwwTivsjY=; b=b6FRtGH1J+uWGzDMagAUgl8y7/cqgtkV9yLgUCAnqm3fozkBuAt90DHr73ntqYxiog+7WxN5zBMEHX6+Mrhj4NtAWGx5N+uuIYY3YKNdJitfFThoVzojba5qDPXVx0HtupKqHplG7jJ4aF7OzekGIRKfDt5j8XAu3f38XBlG9sNjNAuPFnWbEneOtNNH4yFHvpCYrGD+m6mNrNH03u4/kJXgyTq1pMlGdyl1FuuR+o5wmz+d6DyIfUHmpsABhTFr
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; s=14dd8.5f15e1f4.k2007; bh=B9rGLBvBeaD4mgSS5HZhyg537YtPkDw9GUbwwTivsjY=; b=tYqo4HkutoL4z7SH542jZzNSEZkUaPJlSXtZRR6pUcGTRf+uUomN/pdAS7YtJtKm+FVTYOrYeiMLDiGI/dg7BSzGvL0YuQHtVtgaPCPkA4rsE6POftapn65JMLS+SnhKH6XyJzpZat/QJm1s+NDnxESxXddXmsGxXO+8qawZ62BNE2bpwZKi6Hy6TuSjoNHlfJsgcNtulOByufyD4INHf90ECX8gbNss99zY2aiOikdu65eN0iP989uOMkrY9PI8
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 ESMTP via TCP6; 20 Jul 2020 18:27:00 -0000
Received: by ary.qy (Postfix, from userid 501) id 6A3541D44CA2; Mon, 20 Jul 2020 14:27:00 -0400 (EDT)
Date: 20 Jul 2020 14:27:00 -0400
Message-Id: <20200720182700.6A3541D44CA2@ary.qy>
From: "John Levine" <johnl@taugh.com>
To: ietf-smtp@ietf.org
Cc: john-ietf@jck.com
In-Reply-To: <B7E061A14E80279E1E14D92F@PSB>
Organization: Taughannock Networks
X-Headerized: yes
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-transfer-encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-smtp/0Vi0WVBVwRaXLvnpNeEPhVS1zt0>
Subject: Re: [ietf-smtp] Curious, with this now being associated to emailcore, should list name change?
X-BeenThere: ietf-smtp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Discussion of issues related to Simple Mail Transfer Protocol \(SMTP\) \[RFC 821, RFC 2821, RFC 5321\]" <ietf-smtp.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf-smtp>, <mailto:ietf-smtp-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf-smtp/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf-smtp@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-smtp-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-smtp>, <mailto:ietf-smtp-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2020 18:27:04 -0000

In article <B7E061A14E80279E1E14D92F@PSB> you write:
>It is interesting that every one of these starts in "X-".
>
>Presumably, by putting "X-" in front of their field names, the
>perpetrators believe that they are exempt, not only from the
>registry and its rules, but any rules at all. ...

No, they heard somewhere that you put x- in front of header names you
make up and the only registry they know about is the one in MS
Windows.

I did a similar sweep through my mail archive and found 1388 different
headers, all but 144 of which start with x-. Here's the longest ones,
all of which thoughtfully tell who to blame:

x-ms-exchange-crosstenant-originalattributedtenantconnectingip
x-ms-exchange-crosstenant-rms-persistedconsumerorg
x-ms-exchange-transport-crosstenantheadersstamped
x-ms-exchange-transport-crosstenantheadersstripped
x-white-heron-it-services-mailscanner-information
x-white-heron-it-services-mailscanner-spamscore
x-white-heron-it-services-mailscanner-watermark

My experience with people from Microsoft is that they are plenty smart
but often have no idea what they don't know. It might be productive to
make a few queries and see if we can encourage them to register them a
provisional names so at least there's less chance of collision.