IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

David Morris <dwm@xpasc.com> Sat, 29 March 2014 17:04 UTC

Return-Path: <dwm@xpasc.com>
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 6F1191A071B for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 29 Mar 2014 10:04:01 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 2.251
X-Spam-Level: **
X-Spam-Status: No, score=2.251 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334, MISSING_HEADERS=1.021, RDNS_NONE=0.793, 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 sWZ9_91ELPp7 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 29 Mar 2014 10:04:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from c2w3p-2.abacamail.com (unknown [67.231.154.153]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CF7051A068F for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sat, 29 Mar 2014 10:04:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from xpasc.com (h-68-164-244-186.snva.ca.megapath.net [68.164.244.186]) by c2w3p-2.abacamail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AB03A41D63 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sat, 29 Mar 2014 17:03:17 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from egate.xpasc.com (egate.xpasc.com [10.1.2.49]) by xpasc.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id s2TH3vdd018063 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sat, 29 Mar 2014 10:03:57 -0700
Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2014 10:03:57 -0700
From: David Morris <dwm@xpasc.com>
cc: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: SMTP RFC: "MUST NOT" change or delete Received header
In-Reply-To: <5336F93D.6000009@isdg.net>
Message-ID: <alpine.LRH.2.01.1403291001331.19664@egate.xpasc.com>
References: <mailman.1570.1395964793.2468.ietf@ietf.org> <53366F34.8050501@ageispolis.net> <5336F93D.6000009@isdg.net>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.01 (LRH 1266 2009-07-14)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset="US-ASCII"
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/MW4Fe--FUUiIEAEhtbgxzUs9XnU
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
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 17:04:01 -0000

On Sat, 29 Mar 2014, Hector Santos wrote:

...

> was pruned.  If there was a support need, you enabled the preservation of the
> full RFC headers and told the user "try it again."

...
> headers. Thats information you certainly don't need 80% (pareto) of the time.

The problem with the "try it again" approach is that there is no assurance
the failure will repeat. Information lost, is just lost, making end user
support on the 20% (your number) of the cases where there is a problem
impossible. Etc.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email