Subject: RE: MARID charter and using 2822 data

From: "Mark Joseph" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 13 Jun 2004 09:20:04 -0700

>Exactly what in the process of adding a line (or two) at the beginning 
>of the data stream from the network to disk makes you believe MTAs know 
>about 2822 content? 

MTAs will often add Message-ID, and Date headers because email 
client don't.   To do so an MTA must parse and understand the 
basic headers of a message. 

Also MTAs might have to translate body types form 8 bit to 7 bit data. 
An MTA can accept a message in 8bitMime but in forwarding the message 
to its final destination might hit another MTA that only takes 7 bit 
encodings.   Postfix for example can do the translation form 8 bit to 
7.  To do so it must understand the message structure. 

There are probably other examples as well. 

Regards, 
Mark Joseph 

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked]
To: Marshall Rose
Cc: IETF MARID WG
Sent: 6/12/2004 11:40 AM
Subject: Re: MARID charter and using 2822 data

On Fri, Jun 11, 2004 at 08:08:46PM -0700, Marshall Rose wrote:
> wg from considering 2822 as a part of the solution. like it or not
MTAs 
> know about 2822 content. in the simplest example of this, consider the

> Received: header.

Exactly what in the process of adding a line (or two) at the beginning
of the data stream from the network to disk makes you believe MTAs know
about 2822 content?

	\Maex

-- 
SpaceNet AG            | Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 | Fon: +49 (89)
32356-0
Research & Development |       D-80807 Muenchen    | Fax: +49 (89)
32356-299
"The security, stability and reliability of a computer system is
reciprocally
 proportional to the amount of vacuity between the ears of the admin"

---

From: John Levine <[email-masked]>
Date: 13 Jun 2004 20:21:17 -0000

>basic headers of a message. ...

There's a chronic confusion in 2821/2822 mail between mail submission,
in which a MUA sends a new message, ant mail transfer, in which a
message goes from one MTA to another.  In a more perfect world, MSAs
would clean up headers at submission time, and MTAs wouldn't mess
with messages other than putting headers at the top to say where it's
been.

I run qmail, which makes about as clear a separation as possible
between submission and transfer, but even there some kinds of
forwarding accidentally go through the header rewriter.

Perhaps we can say that any MSA/MTA that rewrites headers is taking
responsibility for the message and should be prepared to vouch for
it if it goes out via SMTP again.

Regards,
John Levine, [email-masked], Taughannock Networks, Trumansburg NY
http://www.taugh.com

---

From: "Jon Kyme" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Jun 2004 09:22:42 +0100

> it if it goes out via SMTP again.

Perhaps, or maybe - the last entity to modify the message (except by merely
adding trace data) must be able to vouch for the message.

Incidentally, I'd hope that "vouch" would mean either; assert something
about the source of the message and be able to provide some evidence; or to
take responsibility for the message.