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

Alexey Melnikov <> Wed, 22 July 2020 12:28 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id F0CC13A0AE6 for <>; Wed, 22 Jul 2020 05:28:38 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.099
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.099 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, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 19FBq6QLjIrC for <>; Wed, 22 Jul 2020 05:28:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id A2A9C3A0AE1 for <>; Wed, 22 Jul 2020 05:28:37 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; t=1595420916;; s=june2016;; bh=frHhorm+I6aV0RgEFnfIs3WtSum+y2KnGULkyo0yq58=; h=From:Sender:Reply-To:Subject:Date:Message-ID:To:Cc:MIME-Version: In-Reply-To:References:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding: Content-ID:Content-Description; b=lXzGab7XWMliwHSBwCvJJrDleEh68U4V5odC3iOZrgiX8iIlXCYfTWbmz/dQuX84ZIfRA2 PiQA4AycVxdpeSaSlz7sDSANLaXuzPGlg/PJlSKBaBHsN9wvsuCToS+1unOTwUdTdAQSID wKbXpgSvUHVRaYqiA4t6Pxw+I5x8fSI=;
Received: from [] ( []) by (submission channel) via TCP with ESMTPSA id <>; Wed, 22 Jul 2020 13:28:36 +0100
To: Keith Moore <>, John C Klensin <>
References: <> <>
From: Alexey Melnikov <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2020 13:28:20 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.9.0
In-Reply-To: <>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------AEF250BA7FAC0EF1FDA8C7B3"
Content-Language: en-GB
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: Wed, 22 Jul 2020 12:28:39 -0000

On 22/07/2020 07:04, Keith Moore wrote:

> On 7/22/20 1:49 AM, John C Klensin wrote:
>>> I love the format's extensibility but I suspect there's a
>>> point of diminishing returns.   The message header has
>>> become a garbage dumping ground, and it might need some
>>> cleaning up.
>> Agreed.  But also agree with Dave that it is difficult to
>> imagine how cleaning up such a dump (even if there were
>> consensus on that characterization) could be within scope for
>> emailcore.   It probably is in scope for this list [1] but I
>> hope we
>> don't need to separate emailcore to a separate list in order to
>> get anything done there.   ...Another decision I hope we can
>> defer until after the BOF.
> I will certainly agree that there is no immediately obvious fix to the 
> header garbage dump problem.
> As for the list, if emailcore goes on for more than a few weeks, I 
> think it could be problematic to devote the ietf-smtp list exclusively 
> to that narrow set of topics.  ietf-smtp has served since the early 
> 1990s as a general discussion on SMTP-related topics with even that 
> scope interpreted somewhat widely.   There's a lot of inertia around 
> treating the list that way, and it seems like conflicts over the scope 
> of the discussion are inevitable if the same list tries to serve both 
> purposes.
I am open to suggestions whether or not EMAILCORE should have its own 
mailing list. But I think until the BOF is over, we can use this 
( mailing list, as most of the people who care are 
already subscribed to it.
> More subtly, some solutions are not within the scope of emailcore even 
> if the topic or problem is.
> So my recommendation is to use a separate list for emailcore.
> For what it's worth, when I was musing about the harm done by email 
> header pollution, I didn't expect that the solution was likely to fit 
> within emailcore's scope.
> Keith