Re: SMTP RFC: "MUST NOT" change or delete Received header

Dave Cridland <dave@cridland.net> Sat, 29 March 2014 09:33 UTC

Return-Path: <dave@cridland.net>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 87D5A1A0473 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 29 Mar 2014 02:33:10 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.378
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.378 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=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 wFR02wi_W64b for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 29 Mar 2014 02:33:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-oa0-x231.google.com (mail-oa0-x231.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c02::231]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F15FD1A0470 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sat, 29 Mar 2014 02:33:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-oa0-f49.google.com with SMTP id h16so7140143oag.8 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sat, 29 Mar 2014 02:33:06 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cridland.net; s=google; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=fmEJOggayIUuPyUjMv7wMRIrpmvdcM3x/uwKFYVA67U=; b=ihZyp18mdOq9IYno2UuMP07Jw406sWBcM98aaSelTAwc65Nmq27/3JR50KI2xKx8gU kKPGudEaQpSElZ8ps0ctOhEWu4NVxiams55UFsd7sGKU2syUpi5pYKdbTUbF7kiPwwim 8xBk/XWGU3RmDdot63hTk0FqZmM5PCGa/p/qo=
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=fmEJOggayIUuPyUjMv7wMRIrpmvdcM3x/uwKFYVA67U=; b=iMgFIYRRCmavfXL/ZRVJayGO400aRo9daXLFa/BH7/iKsKya5w72Jg1+VwmBaff2Kx xWmEjuN3aLc3bCWsgjbcB0C4oip9zbaMqj54YbKrRFAb20WQR0haMnl74LSJ9im0JJVE RFYwlzfraNK4+q7ytWMpxwm2JmCyuaBl57rxp4Gx96Ba3tMqdSftg8u4q2OgbftiUy3e Si8OosM+srjB13ut5Jp7IAobU/sVoMGo8I8cXYwx89hqXZg8e1xUy133HRPqktPKQpgT MqV3bJUGdKunriT1QwjO0ZcPSyCBkpwrMNLfh1H3nf2Ee16ozSAJxg2/aDK3v14xtWqT zwuQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnRQWKHQovi+14r4Z4N53n0sLBNhsTaUrI2NJyDqeZGft9KwpHYgEn6Tk/6VCiiEWGyyAlx
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.60.34.130 with SMTP id z2mr11101146oei.14.1396085586534; Sat, 29 Mar 2014 02:33:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.60.58.41 with HTTP; Sat, 29 Mar 2014 02:33:06 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <53366F34.8050501@ageispolis.net>
References: <mailman.1570.1395964793.2468.ietf@ietf.org> <53366F34.8050501@ageispolis.net>
Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2014 09:33:06 +0000
Message-ID: <CAKHUCzwX4+Vv-_iuh_Cr8Q415WsjV13ob6TZcV8uaSh=jjhBtA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: SMTP RFC: "MUST NOT" change or delete Received header
From: Dave Cridland <dave@cridland.net>
To: "Kevin M. Gallagher" <kevin@ageispolis.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="089e01160dca763ca104f5bb81b7"
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/2ZOEvMoBR8k3bQqgUtLOygR2PlE
Cc: "ietf@ietf.org Discussion" <ietf@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2014 09:33:10 -0000

On 29 March 2014 06:59, Kevin M. Gallagher <kevin@ageispolis.net> wrote:

> What do people today think of the SMTP RFC's current requirement that
> mail programs and servers must not under any circumstances change or
> delete Received: headers? Is exposing sender IP addresses to any
> attacker who can view e-mail headers, for the purposes of preserving
> trace information, really worth it when weighed against considerations
> like security and privacy?
>
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5321#section-4.4


I would note that removal of internal Received headers at the exit boundary
of the sending ADMD is quite common - and I ran into this one just the
other day, where a client wasn't doing this and it caused concern.

Outside of the sending ADMD, the trace fields are of very low value for
debugging, and as discussed in §7.6, may be problematic.

Inside (and at the boundary especially), they are useful, so mandating that
they're added, but may be removed at the exit of the sending ADMD seems
sane. I'm not going to demand any change here for the simple reason that
there's no way to distinguish what's happened externally; therefore this
doesn't strike me an an interoperability concern.

Dave.