Re: [ietf-smtp] Curious, with this now being associated to emailcore, should list name change?
John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com> Tue, 21 July 2020 22:01 UTC
Return-Path: <john-ietf@jck.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 EBCB83A0AE9 for <ietf-smtp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 21 Jul 2020 15:01:45 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.897
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.897 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 jesRz25pbdGC for <ietf-smtp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 21 Jul 2020 15:01:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from bsa3.jck.com (bsa3.jck.com [65.175.133.137]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B2DD23A0AE7 for <ietf-smtp@ietf.org>; Tue, 21 Jul 2020 15:01:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from hp5.int.jck.com ([198.252.137.153] helo=JcK-HP5.jck.com) by bsa3.jck.com with esmtp (Exim 4.82 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <john-ietf@jck.com>) id 1jy0KM-0000Gy-KX; Tue, 21 Jul 2020 18:01:34 -0400
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2020 18:01:29 -0400
From: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>
To: Pete Resnick <resnick@episteme.net>, Arnt Gulbrandsen <arnt@gulbrandsen.priv.no>
cc: ietf-smtp@ietf.org
Message-ID: <65855E18CFC3E02EB145F68C@JcK-HP5.jck.com>
In-Reply-To: <49CA9C38-1A30-4456-869D-60D5B70C27B1@episteme.net>
References: <81c2a19c-f19e-b495-3441-22c2a112037c@linuxmagic.com> <52D9A14B4CDD14BB4C97C355@PSB> <CAKFo7w=9_eZda47ZMUv_NE9iN1FEnGM7m3nUFy3_Wq4se+W8XQ@mail.gmail.com> <DE8B2C33275660E19FFA513C@PSB> <CAKFo7wmsm+1ck5G7Sj-NpnyXgeHd14cxGQ6K9KFeVG0_CTM1sw@mail.gmail.com> <5C6196E28FCDC4A312E73A00@PSB> <CAKFo7wk+jLGqjs6mU=Gv3G1xAg+O5OyTmt66fjW4DLzUT5kuPw@mail.gmail.com> <20200719144357.A64221D393E2@ary.qy> <ce227a65-05f8-4b3a-b464-5720cd39fc3b@gulbrandsen.priv.no> <49CA9C38-1A30-4456-869D-60D5B70C27B1@episteme.net>
X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Win32)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-smtp/ALgKgsLQKdL3qToeIq2-xPB6qK8>
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: Tue, 21 Jul 2020 22:01:46 -0000
--On Tuesday, 21 July, 2020 16:15 -0500 Pete Resnick <resnick@episteme.net> wrote: > On 19 Jul 2020, at 11:57, Arnt Gulbrandsen wrote: > >> My personal server currently has 559 field names longer than >> that. The 25 worst offenders: >> >> X-Offlineimap-X706593913-6d61646475636b2e6e6574-494e424f582e6 >> 47261667473 >> X-Gemstorm-Computing-T/A-The-It-Company-Mailscanner-Informati >> on >> X-Ms-Exchange-Crosstenant-Originalattributedtenantconnectingip >> X-Gemstorm-Computing-T/A-The-It-Company-Mailscanner-Spamcheck >> X-Ssjmail.Ssjfinance.Com-Mail-Server-Mailscanner-Information >> Staticcontent1_Header1_F731d3dc-Fd31-4161-Ad91-1083ba56853f >> Staticcontent2_Header2_F731d3dc-Fd31-4161-Ad91-1083ba56853f >> X-Mimedefang-Relay-15b21d6f94afe8e768c451e09085c007047aae7e >> X-Mimedefang-Relay-89167b66339720c294cd81d33948afd6488b114f >> X-Ssjmail.Ssjfinance.Com-Mail-Server-Mailscanner-Spamcheck >> X-Ssjmail.Ssjfinance.Com-Mail-Server-Mailscanner-Spamscore >> X-Gemstorm-Computing-T/A-The-It-Company-Mailscanner-From >> X-Mailscan-242.Hostingdynamo.Net-Mailscanner-Information >> X-Content-Pgp-Universal-Saved-Content-Transfer-Encoding >> X-Kypusserverappliance-Kypus-Mailprotection-Information >> X-Gemstorm-Computing-T/A-The-It-Company-Mailscanner-Id >> X-Mailscan-242.Hostingdynamo.Net-Mailscanner-Spamscore >> X-Mailer.Unfpa-Bangladesh.Org-Mailscanner-Information >> X-Nugget-Enterprises-Antispam-Mailscanner-Information >> X-Ssjmail.Ssjfinance.Com-Mail-Server-Mailscanner-From >> X-Bangladesh-Open-University-Mailscanner-Information >> X-Ironport.Danmargroup.Co.Za-Mailscanner-Information >> X-Mail01lehostingservicesnet-Mailscanner-Information >> X-First-Flight-Couriers-Ltd-Mailscanner-Information >> X-Gemstorm-Computing-T/A-The-It-Company-Mailscanner > > Other than X- field names not doing what people think they're > doing, I don't see the problem here. None of them are over 77 > characters, and none (including the ones you showed later with > curly braces in them) are using problematic characters. So > what's the problem? Pete, I think the core issue is the amount of trash we are accumulating and passing around. I don't see that as a 5322bis problem. It might be a problem with how the registry is defined (probably out of scope for emailcore but anyone who believes it isn't should make a case at the BOF. Questions of how and what header fields a final delivery MTA should discard before the message is dropped in the mailstore (as I think Hector has been suggesting) because they might be useful in transit but are not once received and just clutter up long-term storage of mail (lots cheaper than it used to be but still not free), or even what IMAP or POP servers should suppress before hand-off to their clients might be A/S topics too, although that would be getting, IMO, a bit far afield (and adding additional options to IMAP to control delivery of this stuff is almost certainly out of a reasonable interpretation of emailcore's scope). But the original inquiry was whether we need to restrict the length of header field names. That almost certainly is an 5322bis issue even though the examples given so far don't make a strong case for doing it. john
- [ietf-smtp] Curious, with this now being associat… Michael Peddemors
- Re: [ietf-smtp] Curious, with this now being asso… John C Klensin
- Re: [ietf-smtp] Curious, with this now being asso… E Sam
- Re: [ietf-smtp] Curious, with this now being asso… John C Klensin
- Re: [ietf-smtp] Curious, with this now being asso… E Sam
- Re: [ietf-smtp] Curious, with this now being asso… John C Klensin
- Re: [ietf-smtp] Curious, with this now being asso… John Levine
- Re: [ietf-smtp] Curious, with this now being asso… E Sam
- Re: [ietf-smtp] Curious, with this now being asso… John Levine
- Re: [ietf-smtp] Curious, with this now being asso… John C Klensin
- Re: [ietf-smtp] Curious, with this now being asso… Jeremy Harris
- Re: [ietf-smtp] Curious, with this now being asso… Arnt Gulbrandsen
- Re: [ietf-smtp] Curious, with this now being asso… John Levine
- Re: [ietf-smtp] Curious, with this now being asso… John C Klensin
- Re: [ietf-smtp] Curious, with this now being asso… Arnt Gulbrandsen
- Re: [ietf-smtp] Curious, with this now being asso… John C Klensin
- Re: [ietf-smtp] Curious, with this now being asso… Alessandro Vesely
- Re: [ietf-smtp] Curious, with this now being asso… John Levine
- Re: [ietf-smtp] Curious, with this now being asso… John Levine
- Re: [ietf-smtp] Curious, with this now being asso… Michael Peddemors
- Re: [ietf-smtp] Curious, with this now being asso… Dilyan Palauzov
- Re: [ietf-smtp] Curious, with this now being asso… Michael Richardson
- Re: [ietf-smtp] broken signatures, was Curious John R Levine
- Re: [ietf-smtp] Curious, with this now being asso… Hector Santos
- Re: [ietf-smtp] Curious, with this now being asso… John C Klensin
- Re: [ietf-smtp] Curious, with this now being asso… Hector Santos
- Re: [ietf-smtp] broken signatures, was Curious John Levine
- Re: [ietf-smtp] broken signatures, was Curious Brandon Long
- Re: [ietf-smtp] broken signatures, was Curious Hector Santos
- Re: [ietf-smtp] broken signatures, was Curious John C Klensin
- Re: [ietf-smtp] Curious, with this now being asso… Pete Resnick
- Re: [ietf-smtp] Curious, with this now being asso… Pete Resnick
- Re: [ietf-smtp] broken signatures, was Curious Paul Smith
- Re: [ietf-smtp] Curious, with this now being asso… John C Klensin
- Re: [ietf-smtp] broken signatures, was Curious John C Klensin
- Re: [ietf-smtp] Curious, with this now being asso… Pete Resnick
- Re: [ietf-smtp] broken signatures, was Curious Michael Richardson
- Re: [ietf-smtp] broken signatures, was Curious Kurt Andersen (b)
- Re: [ietf-smtp] Curious, with this now being asso… Keith Moore
- Re: [ietf-smtp] Curious, with this now being asso… John C Klensin
- Re: [ietf-smtp] broken signatures, was Curious Dave Crocker
- Re: [ietf-smtp] broken signatures, was Curious Michael Richardson
- Re: [ietf-smtp] Curious, with this now being asso… Sam Varshavchik
- Re: [ietf-smtp] broken signatures, was Curious Hector Santos
- Re: [ietf-smtp] broken signatures, was Curious Hector Santos
- Re: [ietf-smtp] broken signatures, was Curious John R Levine
- Re: [ietf-smtp] broken signatures, was Curious John C Klensin
- Re: [ietf-smtp] Curious, with this now being asso… Keith Moore
- Re: [ietf-smtp] broken signatures, was Curious Dave Crocker
- Re: [ietf-smtp] Curious, with this now being asso… John C Klensin
- Re: [ietf-smtp] Curious, with this now being asso… Keith Moore
- Re: [ietf-smtp] broken signatures, was Curious Dilyan Palauzov
- Re: [ietf-smtp] Curious, with this now being asso… Alexey Melnikov
- Re: [ietf-smtp] Curious, with this now being asso… Alexey Melnikov
- Re: [ietf-smtp] Curious, with this now being asso… Ned Freed
- Re: [ietf-smtp] broken signatures, was Curious Alessandro Vesely
- Re: [ietf-smtp] broken signatures, was Curious John Levine
- Re: [ietf-smtp] broken signatures, was Curious John Levine
- Re: [ietf-smtp] broken signatures, was Curious Pete Resnick
- Re: [ietf-smtp] broken signatures, was Curious Dave Crocker
- Re: [ietf-smtp] broken signatures, was Curious Michael Richardson
- Re: [ietf-smtp] broken signatures, was Curious John R Levine
- Re: [ietf-smtp] broken signatures, was Curious John R Levine
- Re: [ietf-smtp] broken signatures, was Curious Pete Resnick
- Re: [ietf-smtp] broken signatures, was Curious John R Levine
- Re: [ietf-smtp] broken signatures, was Curious e sam
- Re: [ietf-smtp] broken signatures, was Curious Dave Crocker
- Re: [ietf-smtp] broken signatures, was Curious e sam
- Re: [ietf-smtp] broken signatures, was Curious Steve Atkins
- Re: [ietf-smtp] Curious, with this now being asso… John C Klensin