Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] Back to draft-ietf-appsawg-rrvs-header-field-05 (was Re: Scope of protocol authority)

From: Eric Burger <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 27 Dec 2013 22:15:37 -0500

On the one hand, same here if I use my university email. Worse, if I have the audacity to encrypt the message, the university's MTA inserts a toxic waste warning into the subject header. 

However, we are explicitly NOT the target users for the extension. The documents goes to great lengths to say this is for automated senders and not recommended for people to use. 

Sent from my mobile device. Thanks be to LEMONADE: http://www.standardstrack.com/ietf/lemonade
S2ERC: http://s2erc.georgetown.edu/
GCSC: http://gcsc.georgetown.edu/
Me: http://www.cs.georgetown.edu/~ eburger

-------- Original message --------
From: "Martin J. Dürst" <[email-masked]> 
Date:12/27/2013  7:41 PM  (GMT-05:00) 
To: [email-masked] 
Cc: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>,Eric Burger <[email-masked]>,[email-masked],The IESG <[email-masked]>,IETF Apps Discuss <[email-masked]> 
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] Back to draft-ietf-appsawg-rrvs-header-field-05
  (was Re: Scope of protocol authority) 

On 2013/12/28 2:32, Dave Crocker wrote:

> [*] By way of example -- Although I did have to search through the
> archive a bit, I did finally find an example on the apps-discuss mailing
> list of author-side, multi-MTA handling before a message hit the open
> Internet.

Just look at mails from me. The way I counted, there were three or four 
MTAs on the way out (as well as on the way in, but you won't see that). 
I'm only tangentially involved in one of them, and not at all in the 
others, but that's how it works. One of these is the departmental MTA, 
the others are University-wide.

If I want to go out (or in) directly (sometimes needed for some special 
testing), I have to go through lots of hoops and make sure the IT 
department understands it's for research.

Regards,   Martin.

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 27 Dec 2013 19:23:48 -0800

On 12/27/2013 7:15 PM, Eric Burger wrote:
> On the one hand, same here if I use my university email. Worse, if I
> have the audacity to encrypt the message, the university's MTA inserts a
> toxic waste warning into the subject header.
>
> However, we are explicitly NOT the target users for the extension. The
> documents goes to great lengths to say this is for automated senders and
> not recommended for people to use.

Eric,

The discussion was about topology, not the nature of authors.  Hence, 
examples of email-level multi-hop provide an existance proof that we are 
a long way from having all mail be "direct".

d/

-- 
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net