Re: [ietf-smtp] Fwd: I-D Action: draft-melnikov-smtp-metadata-00.txt

"John Levine" <johnl@taugh.com> Mon, 23 March 2015 22:51 UTC

Return-Path: <johnl@taugh.com>
X-Original-To: ietf-smtp@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf-smtp@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1C85E1A0155 for <ietf-smtp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 23 Mar 2015 15:51:00 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.037
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.037 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, HOST_MISMATCH_NET=0.311, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=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 IRn63GeMWMQ6 for <ietf-smtp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 23 Mar 2015 15:50:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from miucha.iecc.com (abusenet-1-pt.tunnel.tserv4.nyc4.ipv6.he.net [IPv6:2001:470:1f06:1126::2]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 419021A0179 for <ietf-smtp@ietf.org>; Mon, 23 Mar 2015 15:50:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 10599 invoked from network); 23 Mar 2015 22:50:39 -0000
Received: from miucha.iecc.com (64.57.183.18) by mail1.iecc.com with QMQP; 23 Mar 2015 22:50:39 -0000
Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2015 22:50:17 -0000
Message-ID: <20150323225017.39320.qmail@ary.lan>
From: John Levine <johnl@taugh.com>
To: ietf-smtp@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <55108D5D.1000800@sonnection.nl>
Organization:
X-Headerized: yes
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-transfer-encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-smtp/FW9N9YXrT4ohL7sVZx9Ji63BEcw>
Cc: R.E.Sonneveld@sonnection.nl
Subject: Re: [ietf-smtp] Fwd: I-D Action: draft-melnikov-smtp-metadata-00.txt
X-BeenThere: ietf-smtp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Mon, 23 Mar 2015 22:51:00 -0000

>a fourth use case might be, for MLM's to make a diff between:
>
>a) original message and
>b) the message the MLM will distribute
>
>and to send this diff along with the original DKIM-Signature in a 
>'container'. The receiver MTA could reconstruct the original message and 
>verify the original DKIM-Signature (and e.g. apply DMARC).

I'd think it'd be easier just to wrap the original message as a
message/rfc822 part.  The problem with that is that MUAs don't display
them very well.  Hard to say how hard that is to fix vs. putting code
in an MTA to handle this metadata-ized thing vs a shim in the MTA or MDA
that recognizes a wrapped message and unwraps it before delivery.

R's,
John