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

Keith Moore <> Wed, 22 July 2020 06:04 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6C5083A0E15 for <>; Tue, 21 Jul 2020 23:04:39 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.918
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.918 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_NONE=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 EGg_VA5I9QCe for <>; Tue, 21 Jul 2020 23:04:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0FEA23A0E12 for <>; Tue, 21 Jul 2020 23:04:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from compute4.internal (compute4.nyi.internal []) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2F1D45C01A7; Wed, 22 Jul 2020 02:04:37 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from mailfrontend1 ([]) by compute4.internal (MEProxy); Wed, 22 Jul 2020 02:04:37 -0400
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=; h=content-type:date:from:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:subject:to:x-me-proxy :x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm3; bh=2EculL JxlbLBzukTQTQm2MQhFywcukuouVHfzMjEZ0Y=; b=F6jRhNaeMw8VbTryJiKYgw Jq8c2LkpQvTy2JZvxNDZ4UHEgdCikW2NlmNGFEloZJ0AWB4h7n9IpCSzeKJKZ6WK 3jk3QrbbF9TuH378xESdS9ZdAI5B7iddxT5C+KjGKEWuNs4NxJnhInr7JWP/VGsP 6uEHYIL4yKVP0qqwzKOFBRXgyArwSRmQvKEx2jWBHw29GkHFIyZwF9it7mBZTW+L y57c5ZoJ+WTPixfLcXLS/xHHWAN+3GD5K6KrYlRoUz3FIJ42GG+4P8l0rgcFb11/ SrkRN1GNLfnIHg8gW3wL75rOZr8JdiNyfJpvJnv94jPxaVlO5MU3mFi4vV/ahoTw ==
X-ME-Sender: <xms:9NYXXyIYWJFRxKJK8nwpzE4dAnvEYoIvk8d-VGg9UHbMrTplrxZtHA>
X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeduiedrgeekgddutddvucetufdoteggodetrfdotf fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfqfgfvpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgen uceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucenucfjughrpefuvfhfhffkffgfgggjtgesrgdtre ertdefjeenucfhrhhomhepmfgvihhthhcuofhoohhrvgcuoehmohhorhgvsehnvghtfiho rhhkqdhhvghrvghtihgtshdrtghomheqnecuggftrfgrthhtvghrnhepveefteduieegtd elvddvtddufeejjeffvdefteejieeulefgtdfggedtffektedunecukfhppedutdekrddv vddurddukedtrdduheenucevlhhushhtvghrufhiiigvpedtnecurfgrrhgrmhepmhgrih hlfhhrohhmpehmohhorhgvsehnvghtfihorhhkqdhhvghrvghtihgtshdrtghomh
X-ME-Proxy: <xmx:9NYXX6LufgsnrtAAQtSHw-bB4oGon5_HAdwFbGXDx6p4lxBXfaf8xA> <xmx:9NYXXyt_KWBI_zVGiLIOr-ueFGPkPSCP2Mwiag5BEou6GABhctO_aw> <xmx:9NYXX3YzcwTGn4BN9SwO2o96-kG0PailZsK4nqkRZ25sURPM8KAoag> <xmx:9dYXX5rfM8kk3BiLD0wbUb403zWJeEVqLzRY-TVsrtt7DNFRZoZnvw>
Received: from [] ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 5D96C328005E; Wed, 22 Jul 2020 02:04:36 -0400 (EDT)
To: John C Klensin <>,
References: <>
From: Keith Moore <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2020 02:04:35 -0400
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.10.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------932B3A3FC3382E139084FA23"
Content-Language: en-US
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [ietf-smtp] Curious, with this now being associated to emailcore, should list name change?
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: Wed, 22 Jul 2020 06:04:40 -0000

On 7/22/20 1:49 AM, John C Klensin wrote:

>> I love the format's extensibility but I suspect there's a
>> point of diminishing returns.   The message header has
>> become a garbage dumping ground, and it might need some
>> cleaning up.
> Agreed.  But also agree with Dave that it is difficult to
> imagine how cleaning up such a dump (even if there were
> consensus on that characterization) could be within scope for
> emailcore.   It probably is in scope for this list [1] but I
> hope we
> don't need to separate emailcore to a separate list in order to
> get anything done there.   ...Another decision I hope we can
> defer until after the BOF.

I will certainly agree that there is no immediately obvious fix to the 
header garbage dump problem.

As for the list, if emailcore goes on for more than a few weeks, I think 
it could be problematic to devote the ietf-smtp list exclusively to that 
narrow set of topics.  ietf-smtp has served since the early 1990s as a 
general discussion on SMTP-related topics with even that scope 
interpreted somewhat widely.   There's a lot of inertia around treating 
the list that way, and it seems like conflicts over the scope of the 
discussion are inevitable if the same list tries to serve both purposes.

More subtly, some solutions are not within the scope of emailcore even 
if the topic or problem is.

So my recommendation is to use a separate list for emailcore.

For what it's worth, when I was musing about the harm done by email 
header pollution, I didn't expect that the solution was likely to fit 
within emailcore's scope.