IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [ietf-smtp] return-path vs delivered-to, was New Version Notification for draft-crocker-email-deliveredto-00.txt

Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com> Tue, 16 February 2021 10:07 UTC

Return-Path: <alexey.melnikov@isode.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 2B1E23A1174 for <ietf-smtp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 16 Feb 2021 02:07:21 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.1
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.1 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=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=isode.com
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 5e0-htC79O7d for <ietf-smtp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 16 Feb 2021 02:07:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: from statler.isode.com (Statler.isode.com [62.232.206.189]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 094B63A1178 for <ietf-smtp@ietf.org>; Tue, 16 Feb 2021 02:07:19 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; t=1613470038; d=isode.com; s=june2016; i=@isode.com; bh=EozJXdaV9Ed3UuhqmBXkjLZuGZAo5COZAJAh3rtQuLM=; h=From:Sender:Reply-To:Subject:Date:Message-ID:To:Cc:MIME-Version: In-Reply-To:References:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding: Content-ID:Content-Description; b=Tso4lZcEr8tOuBfagJFm7ItOMd1SavtjU9gyHPY3Rba03cehs/Js3gViSWzta5oAgpdMQ8 hY30enk05RYkYJwhNH/YqtAxDCqoGogPa1okvV0wCi9koBtAagWP+uuDIcvAwWRQi6HDUI Vy0mw0cHOyNhj1prr+4Me1C6Q3swL+Q=;
Received: from [192.168.1.222] (host5-81-100-123.range5-81.btcentralplus.com [5.81.100.123]) by statler.isode.com (submission channel) via TCP with ESMTPSA id <YCuZVQAqZnpV@statler.isode.com>; Tue, 16 Feb 2021 10:07:18 +0000
To: John R Levine <johnl@taugh.com>, Dave Crocker <dcrocker@bbiw.net>, ietf-smtp@ietf.org
References: <20210215205020.67C656E009CE@ary.qy> <f57c9144-ce9b-7248-2933-325fbd34223a@dcrocker.net> <c9b520ce-839e-cec7-9fb8-8338efb83@taugh.com>
From: Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com>
Message-ID: <d57ad586-0cf4-30df-fb64-5d4048c8f07e@isode.com>
Date: Tue, 16 Feb 2021 10:07:17 +0000
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.7.1
In-Reply-To: <c9b520ce-839e-cec7-9fb8-8338efb83@taugh.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Language: en-GB
Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-smtp/BiHdWs6IbvIo0a3qBhJ4VlU2qbs>
Subject: Re: [ietf-smtp] return-path vs delivered-to, was New Version Notification for draft-crocker-email-deliveredto-00.txt
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, 16 Feb 2021 10:07:21 -0000

On 15/02/2021 21:18, John R Levine wrote:

>>> 8.  IANA Considerations
>> ...
>>>    In addition, if additional trace header fields (i.e., in addition to
>>>    Return-path and Received) are ever created, those trace fields MUST
>>>    be added to the IANA registry established by BCP 90 (RFC 3864) [11]
>>>    for use with RFC 5322 [4].
>>
>> oops.
>
> RFC 8601 says that Authentication-Results is a trace field. Should we 
> file an erratum?
No :-)
> Or perhaps this is just the kind of additional trace header that the 
> paragraph above contemplates.
>
> I agree that it is unfortunate that 5321 says there can be new trace 
> headers and 5322 doesn't, but that just tells us that 8601 should have 
> updated the ABNF in 5322, as should this draft.

Yes, let's fix this in EMAILCORE.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email