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

John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> Tue, 21 July 2020 02:55 UTC

Return-Path: <johnl@iecc.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 374893A0D5A for <ietf-smtp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 20 Jul 2020 19:55:00 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.099
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.099 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, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1536-bit key) header.d=iecc.com header.b=b/qke1Jm; dkim=pass (1536-bit key) header.d=taugh.com header.b=FxB4rCZq
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 Yah-RDdVfY4C for <ietf-smtp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 20 Jul 2020 19:54:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from gal.iecc.com (gal.iecc.com [IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126:0:43:6f73:7461]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AC2B43A0D52 for <ietf-smtp@ietf.org>; Mon, 20 Jul 2020 19:54:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 69488 invoked from network); 21 Jul 2020 02:54:56 -0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=iecc.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=10f6c.5f165900.k2007; bh=pZ7bO/MBAdZG5l9m1HoYb4sMFP4CulB4Wh3oteVxDPI=; b=b/qke1JmmnelBZfKeYiWB8p3adyj0WcpRvhFTzxfp82ci0Sc7JXxiXLXMJtqgDLuQxbL9meJsF4Moyq8w5oXvsfuySsubqk/yGHISH6PZ+9hFePzHOBDUgpuChki8OKUr7OdbRbZ4kR58dR/EzIUhdxIjy1Qed5G9lPjB3n5k7oIvQ4Gyt/HsTviHivGHLabI+YElMFBOlDWWFVzEKHD51USdht4mWlECyWK4yPbhtpm1w9CGY9lMLxYJkHPb0Wy
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=taugh.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=10f6c.5f165900.k2007; bh=pZ7bO/MBAdZG5l9m1HoYb4sMFP4CulB4Wh3oteVxDPI=; b=FxB4rCZqvQJhLtwiLOC3ryNMMfRWhHrBEol/2/xlaxyTcNdhLeA1exFSxrjtvtrhMrKHEpWxZ6s+aFXMS8SopSpcHW1FofDNkiAG7VM9Td9LsX8pV0d+0EU7X+jWMTPEj+8MsB/G/9P6fFqgBsjudKTPx+8TtUM5a0Wbm/tmvl9rGWcrTIfHD1h93ThjprnTIfIMRY8VS9+ybOByw22tLJ0oJtCGVuOMlcJes5N8Gwfw0J1g9F6OTMD8d8B3axgx
Received: from ary.qy ([IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126::78:696d:6170]) by imap.iecc.com ([IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126::78:696d:6170]) with ESMTPS (TLS1.2 ECDHE-RSA AES-256-GCM AEAD) via TCP6; 21 Jul 2020 02:54:56 -0000
Received: by ary.qy (Postfix, from userid 501) id 9B9A21D5801F; Mon, 20 Jul 2020 22:54:55 -0400 (EDT)
Date: 20 Jul 2020 22:07:36 -0400
Message-Id: <20200721020737.40B4B1D577AD@ary.qy>
From: "John Levine" <johnl@taugh.com>
To: ietf-smtp@ietf.org
Cc: michael@linuxmagic.com
In-Reply-To: <7ffe3864-d553-7071-3552-4e0ee732dcea@linuxmagic.com>
Organization: Taughannock Networks
X-Headerized: yes
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-transfer-encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-smtp/GMc8_DapUhUsaC5Ssa8UQM5Jl18>
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 02:55:00 -0000

In article <7ffe3864-d553-7071-3552-4e0ee732dcea@linuxmagic.com> you write:
>If we see these headers on inbound traffic, they are 'stripped' as we 
>know they shouldn't really exist in the wild in MTA->MTA traffic, and 
>they no longer can be trusted..

That's probably OK. I can sort of imagine a situtation where you have
a customer who is annoyed at you because he was using the same header
names for something that a friend sends him and and those headers
always disappear.

If they start with something like x-linuxmagic- or just linuxmagix-
I'd say you can ignore chance of innocent collision.

R's,
John