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

Hector Santos <> Tue, 21 July 2020 16:40 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2D3DA3A0BA4 for <>; Tue, 21 Jul 2020 09:40:22 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.101
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: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.b=K00epePb; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.b=kAIubP8m
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Ts-PhgjBW2dM for <>; Tue, 21 Jul 2020 09:40:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 383043A0BA3 for <>; Tue, 21 Jul 2020 09:40:19 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1;; s=tms1; a=rsa-sha1; c=simple/relaxed; l=1273; t=1595349616;; atpsh=sha1; h=Received:Received:Received:Received:Message-ID:Date:From: Organization:To:Subject:List-ID; bh=Xs3cUETk8cNKHoJTVuAydqVrZUU=; b=K00epePbvq7pMVODO9iFMWBTtbMqGmJLykJ6ExCh4hIm24HSHyfmZA+Cyq0dl0 5S58fnPxByDSfFEY5/jA9jm4jVTPO3FbmqwxFSZHu73DycYeRls3z9j+krXpfARN tu8zzyuh63igRBFVdGRKc63pkL4C16Ouz0tHKbjj/ybQM=
Received: by (Wildcat! SMTP Router v8.0.454.10) for; Tue, 21 Jul 2020 12:40:16 -0400
Authentication-Results:; dkim=pass header.s=tms1; dmarc=pass policy=reject (atps signer);
Received: from ([]) by (Wildcat! SMTP v8.0.454.10) with ESMTP id 1781914757.1.6184; Tue, 21 Jul 2020 12:40:14 -0400
DKIM-Signature: v=1;; s=tms1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/relaxed; l=1273; t=1595349516; h=Received:Received: Message-ID:Date:From:Organization:To:Subject:List-ID; bh=tX3Hr5F aYfOALX6zDGr+ntG+KSk38XpbyNc1w1rGSrg=; b=kAIubP8mTZD34FLGtHUoM7e wRBvKtXNjbuU+Q5rQO8MIsLvp++S0Rt8pYIHzvU1amQEkr1NtlTRhrVbpWa0ADPm OM24xBv36sFXKGSUYQVshnePkqbL4CB4h2QOi7+RTssJqSxroMaulv03bp46xhC0 Rg9YlM+c1nyAsomyJMAM=
Received: by (Wildcat! SMTP Router v8.0.454.10) for; Tue, 21 Jul 2020 12:38:36 -0400
Received: from [] ([]) by (Wildcat! SMTP v8.0.454.10) with ESMTP id 1492690718.1.29508; Tue, 21 Jul 2020 12:38:35 -0400
Message-ID: <>
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2020 12:40:14 -0400
From: Hector Santos <>
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: Dilyan Palauzov <>,
References: <> <52D9A14B4CDD14BB4C97C355@PSB> <> <DE8B2C33275660E19FFA513C@PSB> <> <5C6196E28FCDC4A312E73A00@PSB> <> <20200719144357.A64221D393E2@ary.qy> <> <B7E061A14E80279E1E14D92F@PSB> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
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: Tue, 21 Jul 2020 16:40:22 -0000

On 7/21/2020 3:37 AM, Dilyan Palauzov wrote:
> As useless mail headers do make emails heavier, I am in favour of
> removing DKIM-Signature headers, that are known to be broken, e.g.
> because the current host has modified (and resubmitted) the message.
> Or if not completely removed, then at least shortened by substituting
> to “b=invalided” or “b=invalidated-on-host-A.B”.  The latter is more
> useful than just having an invalid dkim-signature. (or removing the
> b=/bh= tags and putting instead a new tag containing the host where
> the signature was broken, which not really an Authenticated Receiver
> Chain, and does make the massage shorter).

See my last post on this.

My mail software has been pruning useless headers since the 80s when 
we began to import RFC822 mail.  It has grown tremendously ever since 
and its gotten worst.

The idea of "Who cares?" that RFC5322 meta-header waste is widely 
acceptable, is part of the problem.

RFC5322 Header Pruning SHOULD be a new common practice to be evaluated.

Among others, DKIM-Signature is certainly a prune candidate once 
validation has taken place a the MDA, i.e. transports have ended.

Hector Santos,