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

worley@ariadne.com (Dale R. Worley) Sat, 29 March 2014 16:03 UTC

Return-Path: <worley@ariadne.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 EBAC21A065C for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 29 Mar 2014 09:03:06 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1] 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 3T3Pu66CnAd9 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 29 Mar 2014 09:03:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from qmta12.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net (qmta12.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net [IPv6:2001:558:fe2d:44:76:96:27:227]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AF0C41A0100 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sat, 29 Mar 2014 09:03:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from omta04.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net ([76.96.30.35]) by qmta12.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net with comcast id jTfd1n0040lTkoC01U326F; Sat, 29 Mar 2014 16:03:02 +0000
Received: from hobgoblin.ariadne.com ([174.61.171.170]) by omta04.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net with comcast id jU2W1n0013gwEm68QU2b5n; Sat, 29 Mar 2014 16:03:02 +0000
Received: from hobgoblin.ariadne.com (hobgoblin.ariadne.com [127.0.0.1]) by hobgoblin.ariadne.com (8.14.7/8.14.7) with ESMTP id s2TG1cp7020849; Sat, 29 Mar 2014 12:02:04 -0400
Received: (from worley@localhost) by hobgoblin.ariadne.com (8.14.7/8.14.7/Submit) id s2TG1bnv020848; Sat, 29 Mar 2014 12:01:37 -0400
Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2014 12:01:37 -0400
Message-Id: <201403291601.s2TG1bnv020848@hobgoblin.ariadne.com>
From: worley@ariadne.com
Sender: worley@ariadne.com
To: "Kevin M. Gallagher" <kevin@ageispolis.net>
In-reply-to: <53366F34.8050501@ageispolis.net> (kevin@ageispolis.net)
Subject: Re: SMTP RFC: "MUST NOT" change or delete Received header
References: <mailman.1570.1395964793.2468.ietf@ietf.org> <53366F34.8050501@ageispolis.net>
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=comcast.net; s=q20140121; t=1396108982; bh=EnEXT8iCRmIDJDGZLqBtwW3KTni1j8bYWPNGfq6cZ90=; h=Received:Received:Received:Received:Date:Message-Id:From:To: Subject; b=wLPrOeKF3bYXpElXJUY0ryZog8kuytAMirLl6PcGt5QjH1XoNhlms4AeTvqDoHxce ZlAjzzKXMF9kRY6+lN7okUb2z2CvPoNb1SW6iJheGv0JwAkUnK1EXWPxUgInn4GYv9 X/PrWojbEsPfm174U5e3ttK7E5vRfp4quTdVjRFEvyuXBoQCQsDGskC8lF0b3u8yex 2aq5JT3T2OtuxQTooUI++eBnmaaiXyKudVU2isqlsLZT4hbhwy7a8GG54JDLToYEPj nPDRkO9a/eiT6QBbpD3wE2dUNNhRxFdEN1RZf1DWTxaSczDYl93EAwwRM2i0ky3i7G eC+3V0THAOigQ==
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/czH8xzMjW3tmfQzhq6fMj7hkDjI
Cc: 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 16:03:07 -0000

> From: "Kevin M. Gallagher" <kevin@ageispolis.net>
> 
> 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?

Received: headers are quite useful when you're trying to figure out
which mail server sat on the message for four days.

They're also useful when you're trying to figure out what sequence of
address rewrites got the message to you.

Dale