IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com> Mon, 31 March 2014 03:31 UTC

Return-Path: <john-ietf@jck.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 D43041A095C for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 30 Mar 2014 20:31:43 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.61
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.61 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
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 bTlBBrPrK8Jd for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 30 Mar 2014 20:31:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from bsa2.jck.com (ns.jck.com [70.88.254.51]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B8C681A0930 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sun, 30 Mar 2014 20:31:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [198.252.137.115] (helo=JcK-HP8200.jck.com) by bsa2.jck.com with esmtp (Exim 4.82 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <john-ietf@jck.com>) id 1WUSwh-000PPF-Jk; Sun, 30 Mar 2014 23:31:35 -0400
Date: Sun, 30 Mar 2014 23:31:30 -0400
From: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>
To: Ted Lemon <ted.lemon@nominum.com>
Subject: Re: SMTP RFC: "MUST NOT" change or delete Received header
Message-ID: <F399D8257A298DFB152229B5@JcK-HP8200.jck.com>
In-Reply-To: <9EC12CC9-81CD-4C3E-ADD1-283615767B17@nominum.com>
References: <20140330151432.2721.qmail@joyce.lan> <A3DE810811F791EDC532BDFB@JcK-HP8200.jck.com> <CAMm+LwjrY44GhdMCkqEL_YssNNR=isx-cSQ6KZH-1bkXO7RJWQ@mail.gmail.com> <86005B600BB2261DFDEE715B@JcK-HP8200.jck.com> <9EC12CC9-81CD-4C3E-ADD1-283615767B17@nominum.com>
X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Win32)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 198.252.137.115
X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: john-ietf@jck.com
X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on bsa2.jck.com); SAEximRunCond expanded to false
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/PiqJ3Jlb80NDrjSb1e6mVnA3_T0
Cc: IETF Discussion Mailing List <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: Mon, 31 Mar 2014 03:31:44 -0000

--On Sunday, March 30, 2014 20:38 -0400 Ted Lemon
<ted.lemon@nominum.com> wrote:

> On Mar 30, 2014, at 6:44 PM, John C Klensin
> <john-ietf@jck.com> wrote:
>> Whether one accepts it or not, "been here already" tests are
>> not about debugging.  They are about loop detection and DoS
>> attacks.
> 
> Are there MTAs that make use of the Received: header for loop
> detection?

It is long gone, but my recollection is that the
second-generation VM/CMS Internet-BITNET gateway did both count
and "been here" checks.  Exim not only does a count check but
has a configuration parameter for the threshold count.  Ned or
one of his group would be authoritative about their current
system and its PMDF predecessor but my recollection is that the
latter made at least one of those checks.

Based on the above, comments from others, and my general
impressions and recollections, I think the answer to the above
question is probably "yes, most of them".

    john

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email