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

John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> Sun, 19 July 2020 03:26 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 5EBAB3A0846 for <ietf-smtp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 18 Jul 2020 20:26:46 -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=PLTzZ0/7; dkim=pass (1536-bit key) header.d=taugh.com header.b=GWigAoPd
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 bv_N91a6xdmP for <ietf-smtp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 18 Jul 2020 20:26:44 -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 532463A0844 for <ietf-smtp@ietf.org>; Sat, 18 Jul 2020 20:26:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 36479 invoked from network); 19 Jul 2020 03:26:41 -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=8e7d.5f13bd71.k2007; bh=I0rYpHIGJ1s756LRrpcU9lndpfjb1Gu98bi7aAybY9A=; b=PLTzZ0/7SoqDTylYRG1aRDxxw1q8FF3+PeSAmI3UXOuoeC7fagK/9fGE5LcnTQCjoZggasDvNWbAKGH1ICAv1A0WFrKNCRzjXU+y6Ldp348TlosmSJ1WrlQfVS8oB3wbQYMndrlVIc0NDipX4auTK/ScfFq8E3iA0sA3eP8zJOad0/qhjSOOp1EzetMxM8+3NNRoqSHOCAg2e+x//gM7/1BgSfepnnOljNXfgAlMs5ZJ41nRJildMu0rc3rvLvFM
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=8e7d.5f13bd71.k2007; bh=I0rYpHIGJ1s756LRrpcU9lndpfjb1Gu98bi7aAybY9A=; b=GWigAoPdrzLZgwJtGGy7vIwvrBtHhv59KElYwyIGRxJtM4ioFrzHiJC1OTU46u6dAc9EdYBidepauRR1v9T+W55X+pHCIXoA2LWmIH8ZnB0Rgp97BOBS8JiNdwzjeogqVCc/tbvqCqHMuT9htnBzlrvzciTUuJ/pqmeWtQW1NX7t7l3nR45cXL27HrzT5UZS6oTErSqdg9MAygJMbsvohB5m/ybQEzMD0CIKheOhLcYaT1AsK5vMEgDEvHcwexPz
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; 19 Jul 2020 03:26:41 -0000
Received: by ary.qy (Postfix, from userid 501) id 0BAFD1D362B8; Sat, 18 Jul 2020 23:26:41 -0400 (EDT)
Date: 18 Jul 2020 23:26:41 -0400
Message-Id: <20200719032641.0BAFD1D362B8@ary.qy>
From: "John Levine" <johnl@taugh.com>
To: ietf-smtp@ietf.org
Cc: winshell64@gmail.com
In-Reply-To: <CAKFo7wk+jLGqjs6mU=Gv3G1xAg+O5OyTmt66fjW4DLzUT5kuPw@mail.gmail.com>
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/3BFRQV98BbRbHJDB2aiJZfsF3n8>
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: Sun, 19 Jul 2020 03:26:46 -0000

In article <CAKFo7wk+jLGqjs6mU=Gv3G1xAg+O5OyTmt66fjW4DLzUT5kuPw@mail.gmail.com> you write:
>> Out of curiosity and just to be precise, are you talking about
>> the header field name or the field value?
>>
>
>I was originally talking about the header field name, but I think the
>field value could use some addressing. I once saw a spam email in my
>inbox which 95 percent of the actual email was an extremely long
>header value.

I don't understand the problem. Spammers will send all sorts of junk
which we need to defend against no matter what since they will ignore
the specs.

Each line is limited to 998 octets plus CR-LF, but headers can be
arbitrarily long and folded at spaces. These limits date back to RFC
780 forty years ago so it seems kind of late to try to change them now.

R's,
John