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

E Sam <> Sun, 19 July 2020 02:04 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9C5033A07A6 for <>; Sat, 18 Jul 2020 19:04:46 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.848
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.848 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, FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id bqwgO-l4YGvz for <>; Sat, 18 Jul 2020 19:04:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::335]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 249A73A07A5 for <>; Sat, 18 Jul 2020 19:04:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id w3so21886139wmi.4 for <>; Sat, 18 Jul 2020 19:04:45 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=P84OkXt0ZopViHA/dBbjNHl+3IK5KVLyHcCxhJm+wuw=; b=PNdnFKtNA4RizyqPwi32CU5OCvTap0zzpG3UqaLMqJE76CgzWO0TvsIyWoycSF0eH+ dLyQuKmU0GwrjwFJT9UUCVVSoUjff3IGQ15wlsCJfmBgR8m7SFF+luoVpTb7NduB0SrP 1xCpU01XmSo49+GpIJJkD6g1L/ozzA3TlhSxk4J/FkH8XdrJ1B9tiiTFolrJyWiOhMYA S5xX+eYkLkpPmW6urAhyMoyy3pR9cUJkw7diMyYyJuUw5X8Wja+ux4tZKsWHIxbwtDj5 ZpCTKLgkOC00Ijzf9BFVli0raJ8PudCnCT4Q2OLUA6T6qpLiCdiKo13rshgHo7nl0OV7 ZD1g==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to; bh=P84OkXt0ZopViHA/dBbjNHl+3IK5KVLyHcCxhJm+wuw=; b=qC1LyTwsVYmyuQPt5lOgc/6p2+vyZ/YlnbuQM/6/mIwnLIWTIW/HcpR2+BOGi0ryU4 7bmGlqbiSvHZVZTIgx76wqXMiN4CXw5onOplAdAhDFEtm0Ba8Ad1f8PD3lSM00/dDcuk haamtKFPUk3rlHz9glfzby5vw8RJpmJo+D1Wgibo8hsPYuHUQCMozoplrv5DvYdlTZwd fouqptYzUF3+bQac0Ojb4u0NracD0OMz3/jdfIAhzwk8l8Okgzc9I1wX52xaS/+7qiBY iIr3EiyIgIZ2fTin4e74osYjqaVz1O6vGDIdasf6KFOWXHwKxZ+EJVMXa1Gl7B2ixfSZ cveQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530skbGxtDVqvHVFsA5eUMI6k2Y3e+lsnTlJJpUZxT159vu5ZBkC jtSCSTPizUUAgYlRxHfGgkHuA4XB33Be3p7xhME=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzMVzf+LIKh/HTe1ixMfA9WBMD5WNPeddTFHMzWrAEh9O/zBHr6G43MOFE/XpeRZZEhRnNzSbOcDbScmpSpvcg=
X-Received: by 2002:a1c:7717:: with SMTP id t23mr15343467wmi.75.1595124283617; Sat, 18 Jul 2020 19:04:43 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <> <52D9A14B4CDD14BB4C97C355@PSB> <> <DE8B2C33275660E19FFA513C@PSB> <> <5C6196E28FCDC4A312E73A00@PSB>
In-Reply-To: <5C6196E28FCDC4A312E73A00@PSB>
From: E Sam <>
Date: Sat, 18 Jul 2020 22:04:32 -0400
Message-ID: <>
To: John C Klensin <>,
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [ietf-smtp] Curious, with this now being associated to emailcore, should list name change?
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Discussion of issues related to Simple Mail Transfer Protocol \(SMTP\) \[RFC 821, RFC 2821, RFC 5321\]" <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 19 Jul 2020 02:04:47 -0000

On Sat, Jul 18, 2020 at 8:58 PM John C Klensin <> wrote:
> --On Saturday, July 18, 2020 18:56 -0400 E Sam
> <> wrote:
> > I think the max size of the header name does need to be
> > addressed in RFC 5322. Seeing how email and Usenet can
> > sometimes be the "wild west" I have seen really long headers
> > and developing mail software the question of header max limits
> > have also come into my mind.
> 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.

All the big email providers like Gmail and new email providers with
considerable leverage like and Protonmail keep their header
value sizes to reasonable amounts so I don't think its as important as
the header field.

The problem with header value limits is the length of some headers are
deterministic (like the Path header in Usenet, X-Beenthere in mailing
lists, and to an extent dkim signatures).

I think a header value limit for important headers stored in overview
systems (From:, To:, Newsgroups:, Bcc:, etc...) could be a good
idea... this could be difficult but it is something that we could
consider - I don't know if there is already something out there that
already sets the rules for this and I don't know about it. SMTP
software developers  - anyone from EXIM, Sendmail, OpenSMTPD, or
Postfix on this list can elaborate if they want in my reply.

> Time zones, etc., permitting, please try to participate.  Much
> of the BOF is precisely about deciding what is in or out of
> scope.

I'll try my best. Would I see the meeting link here or will I see it
after I purchase my registration to IETF 108?