Re: [ietf-smtp] broken signatures, was Curious

e sam <> Thu, 23 July 2020 02:05 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id F18D03A0B2E for <>; Wed, 22 Jul 2020 19:05:33 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.099
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, HTML_MESSAGE=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 JPToEIEpdd09 for <>; Wed, 22 Jul 2020 19:05:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3FB7C3A0B29 for <>; Wed, 22 Jul 2020 19:05:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 13D8D40FD8; Thu, 23 Jul 2020 02:05:29 +0000 (UTC)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 13D8D40FD8
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple;; s=heymail; t=1595469931; bh=17j1qNZmtBijYEyLKX37Plt7dt0hHP8lKPwAw21Xbjk=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:Subject; b=aO8nbq69zanbO2KczyjhQJvw/jc6+FdtcsA0Y7iWmDJ0uZnPxrO9QJt4K2i4OI+0j RdPkWOCpPmmX85wDRAD+Edd1n60ChXkk615DFu5THulfDQrXB9pmSn/g8Hu8MxdjeD qoaVt003k0bwq4RAK5CLW69OVAsHv3q3TdiIA0HRgXdCa9QL5R8kacgXSEIUlsW5rz m3KEIqQaYJPMysH4umDKNs8MHRgw5cFRiivmxrLEQC6c2fsAhjDkJf7jDWMhytTyzm ZTtjZ24LEvLpnS/4Sti4+T9jZfT//RpV49I36yliUu1umkng6Xk0rSPIpJwJUmF9EP zVVEbrYfYcrvg==
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2020 02:05:29 +0000
From: e sam <>
To: Michael Richardson <>, John Levine <>
Cc: ietf-smtp <>
Message-ID: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5f18f06959704_2a912d78193bc"; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [ietf-smtp] broken signatures, was Curious
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: Thu, 23 Jul 2020 02:06:39 -0000

John Levine <> wrote:
“> I personally think that if there is enough time for it in EMAILCORE, then junk mail headers can be addressed.

Once again, it would be useful to understand what problem you believe 
needs to be solved. I don't see one, and based on the discussion to date, 
I don't think I'm unusual in that.

John Levine,, Taughannock Networks, Trumansburg NY
Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail.

ietf-smtp mailing list”

Well isn't that what we are discussing? There may be an issue, but if it exists I wouldn't think it would be a big issue

Like I said, if there is a problem, it may not be a big one.

Other people have been discussing about if there is a problem, my opinions are mixed on whether or not putting more bandwidth on this issue is necessary.

I'm just talking about if there IS a problem, which I don't know if there is or isn't one..