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

John R Levine <johnl@taugh.com> Wed, 22 July 2020 18:57 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 1A29E3A0882 for <ietf-smtp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 22 Jul 2020 11:57:16 -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=XXUF9xR9; dkim=pass (1536-bit key) header.d=taugh.com header.b=vrJZdIKB
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 EAEuC5hsBCMd for <ietf-smtp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 22 Jul 2020 11:57:14 -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 6EB173A0872 for <ietf-smtp@ietf.org>; Wed, 22 Jul 2020 11:57:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 742 invoked from network); 22 Jul 2020 18:57:13 -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=2df.5f188c09.k2007; i=johnl-iecc.com@submit.iecc.com; bh=RtKu+cpNDXvJkDcT9vUvhK5zkoMQqrEee+E/6S6tyyI=; b=XXUF9xR9OGiHzTfySmbX3PjUtN8AhC7FGP46zGcchCv+OQMWVopEPNO4GTHV6/3Ez+BJ7BjTuSUAOR3RxRdwUJbF6Ez3sKp31vGFTI9hChm7k0hfp7tfo38RJ7GgbXj8cz8Ba3IWxAR7zc6tNhzpXkqBPjqpLjdPurq504EMhV8hzJDxllv4pEzzuAx89COMNQInXzV7LIAzhpQpLzUsWwdQGXsHpQ8HWWdpYLdALCXZyt9l7j4MWgnQhq7lj39S
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=2df.5f188c09.k2007; olt=johnl-iecc.com@submit.iecc.com; bh=RtKu+cpNDXvJkDcT9vUvhK5zkoMQqrEee+E/6S6tyyI=; b=vrJZdIKBnkE2m0kk1rtaxW+su12/W08ADF700RDPMG4nGe4trnE6CRQEhmoT9SuPu55+2ctBn6oT4S5aQLbhWw+iwz+BY9VmVcLJEF0pzrJRlukkj7Z3l2Ir/GJjqfcVeJ6X4D9LlFmIVWoMrEjFsyQX58xZ3Du5qlbId4H8x5gNLi9Ywq7tUa5A8REoJR5BIVIprcZPGgIetDfKSmQdZewS0//HwhEN15UnyNHkfYBaOSwDy3SLCUgUCJfttBwi
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 18:57:12 -0000
Date: 22 Jul 2020 14:57:12 -0400
Message-ID: <316d8ae7-2be0-ff28-db8c-4f6c8c9a4c42@taugh.com>
From: "John R Levine" <johnl@taugh.com>
To: "Michael Richardson" <mcr@sandelman.ca>
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/u2-HYMp1btAh6GTKAe6Ze6a-ED4>
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 18:57:16 -0000

Also, can we return to the bit you snipped out?

What problem is addressed by removing junk mail headers?

Given that our time is limited, I would prefer not to spin our wheels on 
non-problems.

R's,
Joh

>    > In article <6464.1595370330@localhost> you write:
>    >> If the message goes through "mailman" or some other processor, then it seems
>    >> like it ought to rip pretty much every X-FOO out.  The rest of them ought to
>    >> be known headers at the time the processor was written, and it ought to
>    >> either know what they are, or it does not, in which case, it shouldn't pass
>    >> on things it does not know about.
>
>    > 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.