IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Last-Call] Last Call: <draft-billon-expires-06.txt> (Updated Use of the Expires Message Header Field) to Proposed Standard

"John R. Levine" <johnl@iecc.com> Sat, 17 December 2022 19:41 UTC

Return-Path: <johnl@iecc.com>
X-Original-To: last-call@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: last-call@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2619DC1516EA for <last-call@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 17 Dec 2022 11:41:03 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.097
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.097 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=iecc.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id XtYnmrv5kkVi for <last-call@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 17 Dec 2022 11:40:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: from gal.iecc.com (gal.iecc.com [IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126:0:43:6f73:7461]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 71643C14F726 for <last-call@ietf.org>; Sat, 17 Dec 2022 11:40:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: (qmail 35306 invoked from network); 17 Dec 2022 19:40:55 -0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=iecc.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:content-type; s=89e6.639e1b47.k2212; bh=WxkguNC4FWlIpGK5m20unfzOsHpnT/vDnvn0PyQR0IY=; b=E2Bo1Ef6TKS/f+0Z7+k4oJ2rXxV8CSNUtLSPpiOdjPwsYFd+k8+D9Nr89VDfXC8UgTXCiB7gsVS3oug4SC7KgjVCRgHhWCr5qC5YG4IspJOvQJ7pTvqVB9ZO2YEsdMgXTzdI1wHetbdMEdAX8Ri8QhsYMpQiLCair2JJLq59fsTqSJPGZQ/wr2AIoNCaARNmF6lFOaHkGmObxsF0ePZjwfoKRqyEU6o5RpauEBLFzzqHsnYnp5flIWF1w31zjyTbUXKOsjEn/T1VR9VTT+IDbkgiy5e0m+n7nBLw8aIEl+rWAh+0xa2Sq8ruqxO1qxWoEQEloH9mtkfchtviqngJDg==
Received: from ary.qy ([IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126::78:696d:6170]) by imap.iecc.com ([IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126::78:696d:6170]) with ESMTPS (TLS1.3 ECDHE-RSA AES-256-GCM AEAD) via TCP6; 17 Dec 2022 19:40:55 -0000
Received: by ary.qy (Postfix, from userid 501) id F32F852CFE05; Sat, 17 Dec 2022 14:40:54 -0500 (EST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ary.qy (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6C8B552CFDE7; Sat, 17 Dec 2022 14:40:54 -0500 (EST)
Date: Sat, 17 Dec 2022 14:40:54 -0500
Message-ID: <341d5131-cd1c-177c-4654-e697e6b3d602@iecc.com>
From: "John R. Levine" <johnl@iecc.com>
To: S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com>, last-call@ietf.org
Cc: Benjamin Billon <bbillon@splio.com>
X-X-Sender: johnl@ary.qy
In-Reply-To: <6.2.5.6.2.20221217095711.084c1538@elandnews.com>
References: <166973210946.22951.15613495979123865103@ietfa.amsl.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20221217095711.084c1538@elandnews.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/last-call/NVo5V-kZdPE71dglie33fvDNsZw>
Subject: Re: [Last-Call] Last Call: <draft-billon-expires-06.txt> (Updated Use of the Expires Message Header Field) to Proposed Standard
X-BeenThere: last-call@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF Last Calls <last-call.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/last-call>, <mailto:last-call-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/last-call/>
List-Post: <mailto:last-call@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:last-call-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call>, <mailto:last-call-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 17 Dec 2022 19:41:03 -0000

On Sat, 17 Dec 2022, S Moonesamy wrote:
> I read draft-billon-expires-08 quickly.  Section 2 states that: "Message 
> creators MUST NOT include more than one Expires header field in the message 
> they send."  The statement, if I am not mistaken, ought to be read as an 
> absolute prohibition.  The next statement recommends (SHOULD) that the 
> Expires header field ought to be ignored if there is more than one Expires 
> header field.  What are the valid reasons for ignoring an absolute 
> prohibition?

They're advice to different parties.  The MOST NOT is for people creating 
messages, the SHOULD is to people reading them.

> The header field is currently in use in controlled environments, e.g. the 
> military.  I am not entirely convinced that it would be great to use the 
> "lose its validity" feature for  email over the Internet, excluding the 
> notifications from social networks, as it moves the bar from "message was not 
> received" to "Inbox message was not displayed".

It's also in use in X.400 gateways if any of those still exist.  In real 
mail systems there are already plenty of reasons a message would be 
received and not displayed, most likely because it was stored in a spam 
folder, so I don't see what new problem we have here.

Regards,
John Levine, johnl@taugh.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies",
Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email