Re: [ietf-smtp] Curious, with this now being associated to emailcore, should list name change?
Pete Resnick <resnick@episteme.net> Tue, 21 July 2020 21:16 UTC
Return-Path: <resnick@episteme.net>
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 EE1DB3A0A98 for <ietf-smtp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 21 Jul 2020 14:16:59 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.897
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.897 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=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 07TYRw7nNSbK for <ietf-smtp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 21 Jul 2020 14:16:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from episteme.net (episteme.net [216.169.5.102]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8DAE53A0A96 for <ietf-smtp@ietf.org>; Tue, 21 Jul 2020 14:16:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by episteme.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3218DB56E83F; Tue, 21 Jul 2020 16:16:54 -0500 (CDT)
Received: from episteme.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (episteme.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id M0p2_wDokKvh; Tue, 21 Jul 2020 16:16:51 -0500 (CDT)
Received: from [172.16.1.9] (episteme.net [216.169.5.102]) by episteme.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 65282B56E82D; Tue, 21 Jul 2020 16:16:51 -0500 (CDT)
From: Pete Resnick <resnick@episteme.net>
To: Arnt Gulbrandsen <arnt@gulbrandsen.priv.no>
Cc: ietf-smtp@ietf.org
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2020 16:15:34 -0500
X-Mailer: MailMate (1.13.1r5697)
Message-ID: <49CA9C38-1A30-4456-869D-60D5B70C27B1@episteme.net>
In-Reply-To: <ce227a65-05f8-4b3a-b464-5720cd39fc3b@gulbrandsen.priv.no>
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>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format="flowed"; markup="markdown"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-smtp/zD-d6whGawws2IdlwgQYHHfZRHU>
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 21:17:00 -0000
On 19 Jul 2020, at 11:57, Arnt Gulbrandsen wrote: > My personal server currently has 559 field names longer than that. The > 25 worst offenders: > > X-Offlineimap-X706593913-6d61646475636b2e6e6574-494e424f582e647261667473 > X-Gemstorm-Computing-T/A-The-It-Company-Mailscanner-Information > X-Ms-Exchange-Crosstenant-Originalattributedtenantconnectingip > X-Gemstorm-Computing-T/A-The-It-Company-Mailscanner-Spamcheck > X-Ssjmail.Ssjfinance.Com-Mail-Server-Mailscanner-Information > Staticcontent1_Header1_F731d3dc-Fd31-4161-Ad91-1083ba56853f > Staticcontent2_Header2_F731d3dc-Fd31-4161-Ad91-1083ba56853f > X-Mimedefang-Relay-15b21d6f94afe8e768c451e09085c007047aae7e > X-Mimedefang-Relay-89167b66339720c294cd81d33948afd6488b114f > X-Ssjmail.Ssjfinance.Com-Mail-Server-Mailscanner-Spamcheck > X-Ssjmail.Ssjfinance.Com-Mail-Server-Mailscanner-Spamscore > X-Gemstorm-Computing-T/A-The-It-Company-Mailscanner-From > X-Mailscan-242.Hostingdynamo.Net-Mailscanner-Information > X-Content-Pgp-Universal-Saved-Content-Transfer-Encoding > X-Kypusserverappliance-Kypus-Mailprotection-Information > X-Gemstorm-Computing-T/A-The-It-Company-Mailscanner-Id > X-Mailscan-242.Hostingdynamo.Net-Mailscanner-Spamscore > X-Mailer.Unfpa-Bangladesh.Org-Mailscanner-Information > X-Nugget-Enterprises-Antispam-Mailscanner-Information > X-Ssjmail.Ssjfinance.Com-Mail-Server-Mailscanner-From > X-Bangladesh-Open-University-Mailscanner-Information > X-Ironport.Danmargroup.Co.Za-Mailscanner-Information > X-Mail01lehostingservicesnet-Mailscanner-Information > X-First-Flight-Couriers-Ltd-Mailscanner-Information > X-Gemstorm-Computing-T/A-The-It-Company-Mailscanner Other than X- field names not doing what people think they're doing, I don't see the problem here. None of them are over 77 characters, and none (including the ones you showed later with curly braces in them) are using problematic characters. So what's the problem? pr -- Pete Resnick https://www.episteme.net/ All connections to the world are tenuous at best
- [ietf-smtp] Curious, with this now being associat… Michael Peddemors
- Re: [ietf-smtp] Curious, with this now being asso… John C Klensin
- Re: [ietf-smtp] Curious, with this now being asso… E Sam
- Re: [ietf-smtp] Curious, with this now being asso… John C Klensin
- Re: [ietf-smtp] Curious, with this now being asso… E Sam
- Re: [ietf-smtp] Curious, with this now being asso… John C Klensin
- Re: [ietf-smtp] Curious, with this now being asso… John Levine
- Re: [ietf-smtp] Curious, with this now being asso… E Sam
- Re: [ietf-smtp] Curious, with this now being asso… John Levine
- Re: [ietf-smtp] Curious, with this now being asso… John C Klensin
- Re: [ietf-smtp] Curious, with this now being asso… Jeremy Harris
- Re: [ietf-smtp] Curious, with this now being asso… Arnt Gulbrandsen
- Re: [ietf-smtp] Curious, with this now being asso… John Levine
- Re: [ietf-smtp] Curious, with this now being asso… John C Klensin
- Re: [ietf-smtp] Curious, with this now being asso… Arnt Gulbrandsen
- Re: [ietf-smtp] Curious, with this now being asso… John C Klensin
- Re: [ietf-smtp] Curious, with this now being asso… Alessandro Vesely
- Re: [ietf-smtp] Curious, with this now being asso… John Levine
- Re: [ietf-smtp] Curious, with this now being asso… John Levine
- Re: [ietf-smtp] Curious, with this now being asso… Michael Peddemors
- Re: [ietf-smtp] Curious, with this now being asso… Dilyan Palauzov
- Re: [ietf-smtp] Curious, with this now being asso… Michael Richardson
- Re: [ietf-smtp] broken signatures, was Curious John R Levine
- Re: [ietf-smtp] Curious, with this now being asso… Hector Santos
- Re: [ietf-smtp] Curious, with this now being asso… John C Klensin
- Re: [ietf-smtp] Curious, with this now being asso… Hector Santos
- Re: [ietf-smtp] broken signatures, was Curious John Levine
- Re: [ietf-smtp] broken signatures, was Curious Brandon Long
- Re: [ietf-smtp] broken signatures, was Curious Hector Santos
- Re: [ietf-smtp] broken signatures, was Curious John C Klensin
- Re: [ietf-smtp] Curious, with this now being asso… Pete Resnick
- Re: [ietf-smtp] Curious, with this now being asso… Pete Resnick
- Re: [ietf-smtp] broken signatures, was Curious Paul Smith
- Re: [ietf-smtp] Curious, with this now being asso… John C Klensin
- Re: [ietf-smtp] broken signatures, was Curious John C Klensin
- Re: [ietf-smtp] Curious, with this now being asso… Pete Resnick
- Re: [ietf-smtp] broken signatures, was Curious Michael Richardson
- Re: [ietf-smtp] broken signatures, was Curious Kurt Andersen (b)
- Re: [ietf-smtp] Curious, with this now being asso… Keith Moore
- Re: [ietf-smtp] Curious, with this now being asso… John C Klensin
- Re: [ietf-smtp] broken signatures, was Curious Dave Crocker
- Re: [ietf-smtp] broken signatures, was Curious Michael Richardson
- Re: [ietf-smtp] Curious, with this now being asso… Sam Varshavchik
- Re: [ietf-smtp] broken signatures, was Curious Hector Santos
- Re: [ietf-smtp] broken signatures, was Curious Hector Santos
- Re: [ietf-smtp] broken signatures, was Curious John R Levine
- Re: [ietf-smtp] broken signatures, was Curious John C Klensin
- Re: [ietf-smtp] Curious, with this now being asso… Keith Moore
- Re: [ietf-smtp] broken signatures, was Curious Dave Crocker
- Re: [ietf-smtp] Curious, with this now being asso… John C Klensin
- Re: [ietf-smtp] Curious, with this now being asso… Keith Moore
- Re: [ietf-smtp] broken signatures, was Curious Dilyan Palauzov
- Re: [ietf-smtp] Curious, with this now being asso… Alexey Melnikov
- Re: [ietf-smtp] Curious, with this now being asso… Alexey Melnikov
- Re: [ietf-smtp] Curious, with this now being asso… Ned Freed
- Re: [ietf-smtp] broken signatures, was Curious Alessandro Vesely
- Re: [ietf-smtp] broken signatures, was Curious John Levine
- Re: [ietf-smtp] broken signatures, was Curious John Levine
- Re: [ietf-smtp] broken signatures, was Curious Pete Resnick
- Re: [ietf-smtp] broken signatures, was Curious Dave Crocker
- Re: [ietf-smtp] broken signatures, was Curious Michael Richardson
- Re: [ietf-smtp] broken signatures, was Curious John R Levine
- Re: [ietf-smtp] broken signatures, was Curious John R Levine
- Re: [ietf-smtp] broken signatures, was Curious Pete Resnick
- Re: [ietf-smtp] broken signatures, was Curious John R Levine
- Re: [ietf-smtp] broken signatures, was Curious e sam
- Re: [ietf-smtp] broken signatures, was Curious Dave Crocker
- Re: [ietf-smtp] broken signatures, was Curious e sam
- Re: [ietf-smtp] broken signatures, was Curious Steve Atkins
- Re: [ietf-smtp] Curious, with this now being asso… John C Klensin