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

John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com> Wed, 22 July 2020 01:08 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 5A2323A0778 for <ietf-smtp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 21 Jul 2020 18:08:51 -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 YCbhKkoFYc-d for <ietf-smtp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 21 Jul 2020 18:08:50 -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 35C4A3A0774 for <ietf-smtp@ietf.org>; Tue, 21 Jul 2020 18:08:50 -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 1jy3FY-0000gV-Mt; Tue, 21 Jul 2020 21:08:48 -0400
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2020 21:08:43 -0400
From: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>
To: Keith Moore <moore@network-heretics.com>, ietf-smtp@ietf.org
Message-ID: <B60451A4F812EFB326A5FA43@JcK-HP5.jck.com>
In-Reply-To: <fbd28f17-a048-c2aa-9691-77aa4e08ea13@network-heretics.com>
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> <65855E18CFC3E02EB145F68C@JcK-HP5.jck.com> <fbd28f17-a048-c2aa-9691-77aa4e08ea13@network-heretics.com>
X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Win32)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-smtp/B1HWZbs6Gl5y7JR3lg3rhYDBxoM>
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: Wed, 22 Jul 2020 01:08:51 -0000


--On Tuesday, 21 July, 2020 20:48 -0400 Keith Moore
<moore@network-heretics.com> wrote:

> On 7/21/20 6:01 PM, John C Klensin wrote:
> 
>> 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.
> 
> I think it's slightly deeper than that, which is that every
> time one party adds a new header field, some number of other
> parties decide that they can delete or modify that field, or
> use it to validate or invalidate the message.   So random
> parties making random decisions about message headers are
> detrimental to email reliability.

I agree with that.  But that is the justification for registered
header field names, preferably well-documented and stable ones.

I contend that:

X-I-know-what-this-means-and-I-am-not-going-to-tell-you: (Longer-
   than 35 characters but much shorter than 78)

does no one (other than maybe me) any good (with or without the
"X-".  If there are sufficiently many like that, they are
invitations to exactly the behavior to which you object.

I think this is probably a bad idea (or just short of nightmare)
but I wonder whether if we created a registration tree for
headers named
     private.* :
required registration of whatever came next, and then declared
open season on the rest if that would make things better.  Or
worse.

E.g.
    private.<antispam>.MyCOMPANY.MYSTUFF:
    private.<antispam>.YourCOMPANY.YourStuff:
    private.<trace>.YOURSTUFF:

Noting (to my surprise, I had forgotten) that section 3.6.8 of
RFC5322 allows any printable ASCII character other than SP or
colon in field names.

As I said, probably a bad idea, but the idea that these things
were all going to be registered and documented has obviously
failed.

   john