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

John R Levine <johnl@taugh.com> Wed, 22 July 2020 18:55 UTC

Return-Path: <johnl@taugh.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 8125E3A08DB for <ietf-smtp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 22 Jul 2020 11:55:52 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.1
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.1 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, 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=nHaRS+y3; dkim=pass (1536-bit key) header.d=taugh.com header.b=fOdscNHI
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 JlmcJMk1BEjG for <ietf-smtp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 22 Jul 2020 11:55:51 -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 BC7E53A0891 for <ietf-smtp@ietf.org>; Wed, 22 Jul 2020 11:55:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 99637 invoked from network); 22 Jul 2020 18:55:49 -0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=iecc.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:content-type; s=18531.5f188bb5.k2007; i=johnl-iecc.com@submit.iecc.com; bh=LpMo7KkkEG4RDc+Kb+SSnizMbSiPIJagYaAzDq7UemU=; b=nHaRS+y3+j70n9htDhHb8TExzb3RFCXCq2PakvefN/hzq1oJYdt+oKWP2SGCgy7sdFw7Xb/+zcJ6sjjWLrtsRXtaSsGhi6yhz3z2M734Wxc5M6FmySOiyMLlmbYjKJQ/s+wFZjsT8IxdH6h+15Dxn7vGrE9GS6FDjGxN5a0v0iayHt9pVhK2mlWlYtkOSyHN5WGKX0oZTvoFvTKgSfYgp5Es/qPwdG0A3Vasdc/+Y/UNxIBVdJKWykFYrg+dB+HW
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=taugh.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:content-type; s=18531.5f188bb5.k2007; olt=johnl-iecc.com@submit.iecc.com; bh=LpMo7KkkEG4RDc+Kb+SSnizMbSiPIJagYaAzDq7UemU=; b=fOdscNHIW0yD55NstsCvFjKeuZ2MwwNarkE1sbXfJdBnwVfqnES7GiA8te6nKoc5pr4G+8ih9JgkzoUAOKPL9KUQjbY3zXDto+j5EXOagoLtrhxRO/6PIO6YF5Nq7UtFCj2F9Xxhu/lJQeVxfH0vZWFhTnIAMqpdsYLqw7lZUdp+ABC0JN16Ik0q4Bv6+wM9ceBiuJBIIiJKVMkGYLNKDU0uDzd9xPKriQ/WEGQTZ+H3a7OOPs2UcJ+BFhLyKXEV
Received: from localhost ([IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126::78:696d:6170]) by imap.iecc.com ([IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126::78:696d:6170]) with ESMTPSA (TLS1.3 ECDHE-RSA AES-256-GCM AEAD, johnl@iecc.com) via TCP6; 22 Jul 2020 18:55:48 -0000
Date: 22 Jul 2020 14:55:48 -0400
Message-ID: <b4fbf37b-4db7-ae9f-6b6-be5618fdfa8c@taugh.com>
From: "John R Levine" <johnl@taugh.com>
To: "Michael Richardson" <mcr@sandelman.ca>, "John Levine" <johnl@taugh.com>
Cc: ietf-smtp@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <30737.1595442784@localhost>
References: <20200722172939.891DE1D620A4@ary.qy> <30737.1595442784@localhost>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-smtp/k0rEZIlWw4Eo-5M_WcMC-Y_Z3jw>
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 18:55:59 -0000

>    > That's not gpod advice. The point of the mystery headers is to tell
>    > what happened to the message during its trip, and the part of the trip
>    > before it hit the list manager is as important as the part after. When
>    > I'm trying to figure out why something undesirable leaked through the
>    > list manager, I need the original headers to figure out what happened.
>
> Right. You need the standard "Received:" lines, which would be a known
> header at this point, so it would remain.

Really, I find the other stuff to be useful.  I understand that you don't, 
but you're not the only one here.

Regards,
John Levine, johnl@taugh.com, Taughannock Networks, Trumansburg NY
Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly