IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Wed, 22 July 2020 01:45 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
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 150363A081C for <ietf-smtp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 21 Jul 2020 18:45:59 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 XDYJetOO9eSp for <ietf-smtp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 21 Jul 2020 18:45:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:3:216:3eff:fe7c:d1f3]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 70A5C3A081D for <ietf-smtp@ietf.org>; Tue, 21 Jul 2020 18:45:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6DBB938A23; Tue, 21 Jul 2020 21:25:29 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id fyhB80s09PxI; Tue, 21 Jul 2020 21:25:26 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2::247]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id C212038A1F; Tue, 21 Jul 2020 21:25:25 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 47793EA; Tue, 21 Jul 2020 21:45:51 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: "Kurt Andersen (b)" <kboth@drkurt.com>
cc: SMTP Discuss <ietf-smtp@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <CABuGu1pG2GMx-NP3eSYpgJaxL_yME9hDvxSD89sLQGkBE2sRiA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20200721201938.D4F7D1D5CAD3@ary.qy> <5F1753DF.5000106@isdg.net> <511f7536-cdc0-0bd3-e0bc-f5caa25fbd90@pscs.co.uk> <6464.1595370330@localhost> <CABuGu1pG2GMx-NP3eSYpgJaxL_yME9hDvxSD89sLQGkBE2sRiA@mail.gmail.com>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6+git; nmh 1.7+dev; GNU Emacs 26.1
X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m<nPbLgmtKK-5dC@#:k
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg="pgp-sha512"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2020 21:45:51 -0400
Message-ID: <20225.1595382351@localhost>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-smtp/l-zqa0W9KugLs5peBrNyLTX0evc>
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 01:45:59 -0000

Kurt Andersen (b) <kboth@drkurt.com> wrote:
    >> 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.

    > That's a highly presumptuous stance to take. Knowing what a header is and
    > making a judgement as to whether or not it is useful are not at all the
    > same thing. Amongst other relevant points is the question of "useful to
    > whom (or what)"? Something that is not useful to 99.9% of recipients might
    > be very useful to the remaining 0.1% (witness the current thrash in the
    > dmarc-wg regarding components within the 5322.From header field)...

my appologies... let me a use a few more words here.
(because I agree with you, and you clearly didn't understand my point)

A system that knows what X-GRID-REF is, because it use that header itself,
ought to know where it is a useful field or not, and what the implications
are of removing it.

This might deal with some of the X-Foo-bar-SOMEHEXSTUFF: that seems to
accumulate from multiple hops what I suspect is an internal load balanced set
of systems.

--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email