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

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Tue, 21 July 2020 12:55 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 95A663A0805 for <ietf-smtp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 21 Jul 2020 05:55:07 -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 NfM3VChdu3BL for <ietf-smtp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 21 Jul 2020 05:55:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.19]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BA6043A0803 for <ietf-smtp@ietf.org>; Tue, 21 Jul 2020 05:55:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8491238A10; Tue, 21 Jul 2020 08:34:37 -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 WqNC2ZSx90Qo; Tue, 21 Jul 2020 08:34:37 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.21]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id C65B838A0C; Tue, 21 Jul 2020 08:34:36 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 011DA3F; Tue, 21 Jul 2020 08:55:01 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: Dilyan Palauzov <Dilyan.Palauzov@aegee.org>
cc: ietf-smtp@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <20200721073749.Horde.BvL2fIPJNN50jFlj5GWcj_e@webmail.aegee.org>
References: <81c2a19c-f19e-b495-3441-22c2a112037c@linuxmagic.com> <52D9A14B4CDD14BB4C97C355@PSB> <CAKFo7w=9_eZda47ZMUv_NE9iN1FEnGM7m3nUFy3_Wq4se+W8XQ@mail.gmail.com> <DE8B2C33275660E19FFA513C@PSB> <CAKFo7wmsm+1ck5G7Sj-NpnyXgeHd14cxGQ6K9KFeVG0_CTM1sw@mail.gmail.com> <5C6196E28FCDC4A312E73A00@PSB> <CAKFo7wk+jLGqjs6mU=Gv3G1xAg+O5OyTmt66fjW4DLzUT5kuPw@mail.gmail.com> <20200719144357.A64221D393E2@ary.qy> <ce227a65-05f8-4b3a-b464-5720cd39fc3b@gulbrandsen.priv.no> <B7E061A14E80279E1E14D92F@PSB> <20200721073749.Horde.BvL2fIPJNN50jFlj5GWcj_e@webmail.aegee.org>
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 08:55:01 -0400
Message-ID: <25857.1595336101@localhost>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-smtp/p2IvxHoZ-3i75KbwrJ55h5qM8eI>
Subject: Re: [ietf-smtp] Curious, with this now being associated to emailcore, should list name change?
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: Tue, 21 Jul 2020 12:55:08 -0000

Dilyan Palauzov <Dilyan.Palauzov@aegee.org> 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).

"I, host-A.B, (failed-to) validated the DKIM header from C.D, but I removed it when I
broke the message"

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