IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> Sun, 19 July 2020 17:46 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 9F9163A079B for <ietf-smtp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 19 Jul 2020 10:46:34 -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=xwfCeMto; dkim=pass (1536-bit key) header.d=taugh.com header.b=BlvM11vY
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 QsBnsFiVQs32 for <ietf-smtp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 19 Jul 2020 10:46:33 -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 11A323A078F for <ietf-smtp@ietf.org>; Sun, 19 Jul 2020 10:46:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 68770 invoked from network); 19 Jul 2020 17:46:31 -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=10c9d.5f1486f7.k2007; bh=jnvxUclvXuAwh8uMCjGog/sWz9ktAwqI25wIHAQ5DNY=; b=xwfCeMtoq9KoL8BzGOzHA8O0JweXHaq5ADZe+UVvf4SSH5M1eBYYkYQgPLppa0xR67Lh/FcPOh57TxmkTJY2QSYBx2BmWhkCYUWD3Ut/8P9Y9Ro2UT34GLQ5jN3NOIeYbnOlGwCUVxrEHuDWC5JBYo4racrFJNKniqMqPe2m5wanyl8FtQFsElGKZr9Da9mK2Hy4N86SMB3wWhMNdxXQfuB+YBKLvoar4cjoTaO6PC0qLWGq+Vuh3CoRRgWQlqts
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=10c9d.5f1486f7.k2007; bh=jnvxUclvXuAwh8uMCjGog/sWz9ktAwqI25wIHAQ5DNY=; b=BlvM11vYHSbmfFUvpE/rupkKAhLJsn5Pi0VTVbPVt82V82A6WA2npfrOLHIu0ZwWhitgseHlrcO3jFMa1wEaf5pS31P6t+qVYMImQEKO6YV3HqXZHeO8ykG4SUuF02hWBMK81T7Bt55HvLBtpm2LcF7zx32O8A9d2E1zPBjniWu6dwRJPYwB+W2ngAJvMQuEWQPFQK1OHUzQRiiU5gkpPLoPbSGeiR8Pd2OvAi8AcFlxXxj08AAVz+I43/VigNvl
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 ESMTP via TCP6; 19 Jul 2020 17:46:30 -0000
Received: by ary.qy (Postfix, from userid 501) id A63BF1D3A3A6; Sun, 19 Jul 2020 13:46:30 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Sun, 19 Jul 2020 13:46:30 -0400
Message-Id: <20200719174630.A63BF1D3A3A6@ary.qy>
From: John Levine <johnl@taugh.com>
To: ietf-smtp@ietf.org
Cc: arnt@gulbrandsen.priv.no
In-Reply-To: <ce227a65-05f8-4b3a-b464-5720cd39fc3b@gulbrandsen.priv.no>
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/XLkquC_Gn9mGJQ4QbOfv7FSZ8Yw>
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: Sun, 19 Jul 2020 17:46:35 -0000

In article <ce227a65-05f8-4b3a-b464-5720cd39fc3b@gulbrandsen.priv.no> you write:
>On Sunday 19 July 2020 16:43:57 CEST, John Levine wrote:
>> Adding new names to the registry requires expert review and I expect
>> the expert would be sceptical of proposed names that were a lot longer
>> than the existing ones. I don't see any over 35 characters which seems
>> reasonable.
>
>My personal server currently has 559 field names longer than that. The 25 
>worst offenders:
>
> X-Offlineimap-X706593913-6d61646475636b2e6e6574-494e424f582e647261667473
> X-Gemstorm-Computing-T/A-The-It-Company-Mailscanner-Information
> ...

Right, that's what I meant when I said that no matter what the specs say,
we have to defend against junk.  Those don't look particularly spammy,
just clueless, but we have to deal with them anyway.

R's,
John

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email