IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Dave Crocker <dhc@dcrocker.net> Sat, 29 March 2014 16:18 UTC

Return-Path: <dhc@dcrocker.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 4FFCB1A06C1 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 29 Mar 2014 09:18:32 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3] 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 Lf2tmWtdKUDE for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 29 Mar 2014 09:18:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sbh17.songbird.com (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.17]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E4CBD1A00FD for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sat, 29 Mar 2014 09:18:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.19.2] ([172.56.17.159]) (authenticated bits=0) by sbh17.songbird.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id s2TGIOse019381 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Sat, 29 Mar 2014 09:18:28 -0700
Message-ID: <5336F1EF.1020203@dcrocker.net>
Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2014 09:16:47 -0700
From: Dave Crocker <dhc@dcrocker.net>
Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Ted Lemon <ted.lemon@nominum.com>
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>
In-Reply-To: <0AF4D5B8-C99C-4944-87FA-A458D6CE67D9@nominum.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.0 (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.66]); Sat, 29 Mar 2014 09:18:28 -0700 (PDT)
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/yKB7qj4DHoqLYCgFIzS6xqsdZRA
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
Reply-To: dcrocker@bbiw.net
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 16:18:32 -0000

On 3/29/2014 5:36 AM, Ted Lemon wrote:
> On Mar 29, 2014, at 5:51 AM, Eliot Lear<lear@cisco.com>  wrote:
>> >There is at least some value in retaining trace headers both for
>> >debugging and anti-spam (mostly validating what one would expect to for
>> >a given sender see), headers added by an MSA can entail privacy concerns
>> >that (IMHO) outweigh debugging considerations.
 >
> RFC 7044 (An Extension to the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) for
> Request History Information) did a pretty nice job of addressing very
> similar privacy concerns.


1. Even a document as 'small' as 26 pages is large enough to make a 
simple document reference be vague; can you point to the specific text 
that is relevant to this thread?

2. In spite of email's having 30 years of operational experience with 
this issue, RFC 7044 does no more than make a generic reference to email 
in the Background section.  For the purposes of the current thread, that 
makes applying the RFC 7044 reference even more challenging.  It would 
help if you explained how we ought to apply its lessons to the question 
at hand.

d/


-- 
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email