IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [ietf-smtp] Discussion about draft-benecke-cfbl-address-header

Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it> Sat, 22 January 2022 12:06 UTC

Return-Path: <vesely@tana.it>
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 677B83A17C7 for <ietf-smtp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 22 Jan 2022 04:06:33 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.811
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.811 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, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.714, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=neutral reason="invalid (unsupported algorithm ed25519-sha256)" header.d=tana.it header.b=VxKBrF8Y; dkim=pass (1152-bit key) header.d=tana.it header.b=BoMrqbbl
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 QtGC35pFpDCu for <ietf-smtp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 22 Jan 2022 04:06:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: from wmail.tana.it (wmail.tana.it [62.94.243.226]) (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 A0CC93A17C6 for <ietf-smtp@ietf.org>; Sat, 22 Jan 2022 04:06:26 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=ed25519-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=tana.it; s=epsilon; t=1642853182; bh=qfiUcYG58QvLhFYaXmkdyj8hxnZ78TbRNyOqhIoasKs=; h=Subject:To:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To; b=VxKBrF8Y/I0o5q98hYw7zO+dy5P1qdmCOvrBAdrswb32dpMRjnwgnH6mxrCv/8Vsa a4Z1hc1q5CkmxB+S7oNAg==
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=tana.it; s=delta; t=1642853182; bh=qfiUcYG58QvLhFYaXmkdyj8hxnZ78TbRNyOqhIoasKs=; h=To:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To; b=BoMrqbbl1HCtD3Yui2XJk2rwaSoPeCR8RuhbXpzFGQJR9v+GN43ah05X5Np4V+Can uQwQO58pAv39tfCJ+tcsSVZ1R+JTqhJXjSrZfqdeXyK/BuaeNg72RILsNAwA4pKauR kv4qW1NbkdW+HMNDt53pP/p+mCw9d/c38v8TBOAxuJ8G4siS/q9y0v9zYFKm3
Authentication-Results: tana.it; auth=pass (details omitted)
Original-From: Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it>
Received: from [172.25.197.111] (pcale.tana [172.25.197.111]) (AUTH: CRAM-MD5 uXDGrn@SYT0/k, TLS: TLS1.3, 128bits, ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) by wmail.tana.it with ESMTPSA id 00000000005DC0D3.0000000061EBF33E.00003912; Sat, 22 Jan 2022 13:06:22 +0100
To: ietf-smtp@ietf.org
References: <20220115022255.2308E34F7E4B@ary.qy> <67ce9f2e-05e8-eeaf-9203-fb7a645cf048@tana.it> <455a40c9-820b-7078-6584-d4c73e20fc49@cleverreach.com>
From: Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it>
Message-ID: <d7c46075-d230-f650-b810-c1864698e91c@tana.it>
Date: Sat, 22 Jan 2022 13:06:22 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.14.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <455a40c9-820b-7078-6584-d4c73e20fc49@cleverreach.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-smtp/7gOvUdckowklvFSNutR6UlQrY1s>
Subject: Re: [ietf-smtp] Discussion about draft-benecke-cfbl-address-header
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: Sat, 22 Jan 2022 12:06:34 -0000

On Thu 20/Jan/2022 13:42:43 +0100 Jan-Philipp Benecke wrote:
> Am 19.01.22 um 19:52 schrieb Alessandro Vesely:
> 
>> The practice to redact information could be mentioned.
> Could you give me a little more detail on what you expect here?
> Do you mean the general existing practice to redact information?


J.D. Falk recommends to redact the recipient email address throughout RFC 6449. 
  Since you cite that, you could as well cite RFC 6590.


>> Why shouldn't messages automatically filtered to the Junk folder be
>> reported? Isn't it interesting?
> 
> Good point, the information about automatic filtering is of course
> interesting as well.
> The more i think about it, the more i think that this decision should be
> made by the mailbox provider and not by the I-D.


The I-D can provide a means to express that decision.


Best
Ale
--

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email