IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Hector Santos <hsantos@isdg.net> Sat, 29 March 2014 16:49 UTC

Return-Path: <hsantos@isdg.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 F21051A06FE for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 29 Mar 2014 09:49:45 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.001
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.001 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 a2mojuHg6Xng for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 29 Mar 2014 09:49:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pop3.winserver.com (secure.winserver.com [208.247.131.9]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 30BA41A07B9 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sat, 29 Mar 2014 09:49:44 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; d=isdg.net; s=tms1; a=rsa-sha1; c=simple/relaxed; l=303; t=1396111778; h=Received:Received: Received:Received:Message-ID:Date:From:Organization:To:Subject: List-ID; bh=UxLrYDmE1o/vtD0mwYOO9vFzdj8=; b=fKF7HetJyEBrj9kiGaIK L0PK+F3Hl2x5d3c77mT+UvwXMETnBjRfOy8GwYismoYytLwsfm6qD/1l21B1BljN zFhBv+KM2ZHwSY7uc76MFrZSQK+YFqkO4/cM2rOMppNBuxNhhQg7Z01M+43SOYQK 0TrrT4hotZ9+jjhcPJp5SnA=
Received: by winserver.com (Wildcat! SMTP Router v7.0.454.4) for ietf@ietf.org; Sat, 29 Mar 2014 11:49:38 -0500
Authentication-Results: dkim.winserver.com; dkim=pass header.d=beta.winserver.com header.s=tms1 header.i=beta.winserver.com; adsp=pass policy=all author.d=isdg.net asl.d=beta.winserver.com;
Received: from beta.winserver.com (hector.wildcatblog.com [208.247.131.23]) by winserver.com (Wildcat! SMTP v7.0.454.4) with ESMTP id 1099240368.8462.4976; Sat, 29 Mar 2014 11:49:37 -0500
DKIM-Signature: v=1; d=beta.winserver.com; s=tms1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/relaxed; l=303; t=1396111742; h=Received:Received: Message-ID:Date:From:Organization:To:Subject:List-ID; bh=f+9Q4dD X+TPhtABvcvIL6aD+1ME5hgYalfYSp3m0sGw=; b=mleka4jTgLabR/n7rRIIgxr Y1LPtqoZnIKRfD8hjv6Iju2LoIiN+2RdREAPd4fLQFUtBXL4nlNsg2ZJnejtslB+ S6vaZWFc+rukhrgTwMyoGpZN2E4ZvVptVM/apcmfRqkGlY95vuSGbFYGZqAvk8Oj TwHagpgsySC9cGG5aej0=
Received: by beta.winserver.com (Wildcat! SMTP Router v7.0.454.4) for ietf@ietf.org; Sat, 29 Mar 2014 12:49:02 -0400
Received: from [192.168.1.2] ([99.121.4.27]) by beta.winserver.com (Wildcat! SMTP v7.0.454.4) with ESMTP id 545498647.9.18168; Sat, 29 Mar 2014 12:49:01 -0400
Message-ID: <5336F9A8.5050305@isdg.net>
Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2014 12:49:44 -0400
From: Hector Santos <hsantos@isdg.net>
Organization: Santronics Software, Inc.
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.3.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Scott Brim <scott.brim@gmail.com>, IETF discussion list <ietf@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: SMTP RFC: "MUST NOT" change or delete Received header
References: <mailman.1570.1395964793.2468.ietf@ietf.org> <53366F34.8050501@ageispolis.net> <5336979B.6000102@cisco.com> <0AF4D5B8-C99C-4944-87FA-A458D6CE67D9@nominum.com> <5336F1EF.1020203@dcrocker.net> <CAPv4CP9nFmYfondSrqA7ETkhvCMe4YrqRjOdGZuPiLz2kZzXrw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAPv4CP9nFmYfondSrqA7ETkhvCMe4YrqRjOdGZuPiLz2kZzXrw@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/QTwHj2NSLyntA0wVJLvdztK-amk
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 16:49:46 -0000

On 3/29/2014 12:43 PM, Scott Brim wrote:
> I think the privacy beach from exposing intermediate steps is small,
> and in some cases knowledge of the routing may be required by law.

That has always been my engineering understanding, and it predated the 
IETF RFC electronic mail format.

-- 
HLS

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email