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

Hector Santos <hsantos@isdg.net> Wed, 22 July 2020 01:55 UTC

Return-Path: <hsantos@isdg.net>
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 632D23A082C for <ietf-smtp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 21 Jul 2020 18:55:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.101
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.101 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, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=isdg.net header.b=C24m9Rq1; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=beta.winserver.com header.b=V4GRYcud
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 3rGLlXKfIjXo for <ietf-smtp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 21 Jul 2020 18:55:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.winserver.com (listserv.winserver.com [76.245.57.69]) (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 602283A082A for <ietf-smtp@ietf.org>; Tue, 21 Jul 2020 18:55:23 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; d=isdg.net; s=tms1; a=rsa-sha1; c=simple/relaxed; l=995; t=1595382912; atps=ietf.org; atpsh=sha1; h=Received:Received:Received:Received:Message-ID:Date:From: Organization:To:Subject:List-ID; bh=lHO3JortHvF7SZe7X/MQ3J+BQtU=; b=C24m9Rq1tk9ZsGGfFEwFRB2EIbGpiC60vWXgqnW2VB3e+vDsCEdvfUYu0GvSTo SmU+86dnl47hZIBk3W3m/lnuVesb7VHWl1LirQnkWef/Q5KrUuppc9lVMALTx4CC Lu/m+kPIo8vtvQ2Y3R3mFmiC1mA4ktsbf8XeRT3WS5Ztg=
Received: by mail.winserver.com (Wildcat! SMTP Router v8.0.454.10) for ietf-smtp@ietf.org; Tue, 21 Jul 2020 21:55:12 -0400
Authentication-Results: dkim.winserver.com; dkim=pass header.d=beta.winserver.com header.s=tms1 header.i=beta.winserver.com; dmarc=pass policy=reject author.d=isdg.net signer.d=beta.winserver.com (atps signer);
Received: from beta.winserver.com ([76.245.57.74]) by mail.winserver.com (Wildcat! SMTP v8.0.454.10) with ESMTP id 1815210940.1.5276; Tue, 21 Jul 2020 21:55:11 -0400
DKIM-Signature: v=1; d=beta.winserver.com; s=tms1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/relaxed; l=995; t=1595382809; h=Received:Received: Message-ID:Date:From:Organization:To:Subject:List-ID; bh=COZrwj0 SLzaTro7PUZejqfnTrpRWsOB8nY1KMwPBZPg=; b=V4GRYcud2oWXbnzA3deAUJh Do/im0gMP7Sk5BvTbWDJshemqSjrs26P8AqK5DI/Xt70ixB+5jxgfn6ULizhsXNU PHXEAtoRL4YKmLSk3At/9vt0PyRM6qjmDFdg/eq9APvT3ejkO+g5IzdoMoNLnr9n iFVr8qD2IpTRG+LT+Rr4=
Received: by beta.winserver.com (Wildcat! SMTP Router v8.0.454.10) for ietf-smtp@ietf.org; Tue, 21 Jul 2020 21:53:29 -0400
Received: from [192.168.1.68] ([75.26.216.248]) by beta.winserver.com (Wildcat! SMTP v8.0.454.10) with ESMTP id 1525983765.1.29432; Tue, 21 Jul 2020 21:53:28 -0400
Message-ID: <5F179C7C.2090406@isdg.net>
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2020 21:55:08 -0400
From: Hector Santos <hsantos@isdg.net>
Reply-To: hsantos@isdg.net
Organization: Santronics Software, Inc.
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.8.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>, Paul Smith <paul@pscs.co.uk>
CC: ietf-smtp@ietf.org
References: <20200721201938.D4F7D1D5CAD3@ary.qy> <5F1753DF.5000106@isdg.net> <511f7536-cdc0-0bd3-e0bc-f5caa25fbd90@pscs.co.uk> <6464.1595370330@localhost>
In-Reply-To: <6464.1595370330@localhost>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-smtp/ZKHHR-o9lipmMXAK-8fBcVDt-OE>
Subject: Re: [ietf-smtp] broken signatures, was Curious
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: Wed, 22 Jul 2020 01:55:26 -0000

On 7/21/2020 6:25 PM, Michael Richardson wrote:

> I suspect that this would at least make a lot of us less grumpy about excess headers.
>
> I don't subscribe to the idea that the target MTA should rip everything other
> than From/To/Subject/Date out.  That would limit our ability to innovate, and
> there sure has been a lot of that!  But, surely, any system that knows what
> some header is, (such as X-BeenThere or X-GRID-REF) *is* ought to rip that
> out as it knows whether or not its useful.

A MUA does not display all headers. It only extract and displays what 
it needs. For anymore starting to write an MUA from scratch, the 
fields you will need to first deal with for display are 
From/To/Subject/Date.

The OffLine MUA will need all the headers because it handles the 
rendering. The Online MUA will not need all the headers because the 
centralized backend handles the rendering.


-- 
Hector Santos,
https://secure.santronics.com
https://twitter.com/hectorsantos