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

Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it> Mon, 20 July 2020 07:51 UTC

Return-Path: <vesely@tana.it>
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 E9FC03A082E for <ietf-smtp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 20 Jul 2020 00:51:05 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.121
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.121 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, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1152-bit key) header.d=tana.it
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 dN-Dwi8biRlz for <ietf-smtp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 20 Jul 2020 00:51:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from wmail.tana.it (wmail.tana.it [62.94.243.226]) (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 C2DC43A082D for <ietf-smtp@ietf.org>; Mon, 20 Jul 2020 00:51:03 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=tana.it; s=delta; t=1595231460; bh=BQLX90sscw6nPvTHFYtCrFNX/26c1eMsWHvOLFDHGJM=; l=1151; h=To:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To; b=A31uZH3fSjjJJrUKozUtO3uFWhLiQ9mEA5jlGR8yFeJ2+x83SloHTwISsxYpvPjkR FZL+88og2ytX7mkil93UzvneX8ihZjpZY7O7/+W/XISv1OwrokWwOO1tsBOWjq+M4w mkegl0LEpPdU1dMxXWOqCSrQStmd/xTKq+xttzhva+GVzbsYokSIhmQXAmw2D
Authentication-Results: tana.it; auth=pass (details omitted)
Received: from [172.25.197.111] (pcale.tana [172.25.197.111]) (AUTH: CRAM-MD5 uXDGrn@SYT0/k, TLS: TLS1.3, 128bits, ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) by wmail.tana.it with ESMTPSA id 00000000005DC09F.000000005F154CE4.000075E7; Mon, 20 Jul 2020 09:51:00 +0200
To: ietf-smtp@ietf.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>
From: Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it>
Message-ID: <7a0b7933-bc1c-fc24-98a5-86a419c26b0e@tana.it>
Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2020 09:51:00 +0200
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: <B7E061A14E80279E1E14D92F@PSB>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-smtp/rM1zgukVrYehBwDASfqNccAK66U>
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: Mon, 20 Jul 2020 07:51:06 -0000

On Sun 19/Jul/2020 20:19:52 +0200 John C Klensin wrote:
> Would the suggestion that started this thread be consistent with an
> applicability statement, either in 2822bis or the separate document for
> which draft-klensin-email-core-as-00 is a placeholder, that said something
> like "Header field names starting in 'X-' or longer than NNN are prohibited
> unless they are legacy registrations in the IANA registry.  They MUST NOT
> be transmitted in messages and Submission Servers and other systems 
> encountering them MAY, and in most cases SHOULD, delete them"?

Such a drastic stance may make sense if we need to guard against some kind of 
violation.  For example, header fields which aim at capturing some traits of 
the body of a message which are considered relevant for tracking, profiling, or 
similar activities which might be considered intrusive.  Such fields can allow 
a mail system to link non-delivery notifications and DMARC/ DKIM/ SPF failure 
notices which contain text/rfc822-headers only to their missing bodies.  That 
way, they'd defeat the omission of the body due to privacy concerns.


Just ruminating...
Ale
--