Subject: [Tools-discuss] IETF Email problem - Loosing From: field contents

From: Bob Hinden <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2005 16:50:58 -0700

Hi,

We apparently have a problem where something in the IETF email 
infrastructure is changing the From: fields.  See example below.  From 
where the "new" From: field is in the email headers, it looks like it is 
happening at: ietf-mx.ietf.org (though be at the next hop).

The reason I think it is very important to fix this, is that the email that 
it is impossible to see who sent an email.  This is in my view a big 
problem for an open standards group where it is important to know who made 
specific comments.

I hope this can be fixed as soon as possible.

Thanks,
Bob

p.s. This is not a problem in the archive.  It must be getting put in the 
archive prior to the From: header rewriting.  I did note that the web 
archive is somewhat different from the ftp archive.  No clue....

>Received: from daebh101.NOE.Nokia.com ([10.241.35.111]) by 
>daebe102.NOE.Nokia.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830);
>         Mon, 19 Sep 2005 10:31:17 -0500
>Received: from esebh107.NOE.Nokia.com ([172.21.143.143]) by 
>daebh101.NOE.Nokia.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830);
>         Mon, 19 Sep 2005 10:31:16 -0500
>Received: from esdks004.ntc.nokia.com ([172.21.138.159]) by 
>esebh107.NOE.Nokia.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830);
>         Mon, 19 Sep 2005 18:31:13 +0300
>X-Scanned: Mon, 19 Sep 2005 18:30:34 +0300 Nokia Message Protector V1.3.35 
>2005042208 - RELEASE
>Received: (from root@localhost)
>         by esdks004.ntc.nokia.com (8.12.9/8.12.9) id j8JFUXmT032285;
>         Mon, 19 Sep 2005 18:30:34 +0300
>Received: from mgw-ext02.nokia.com (131.228.20.94)
>         by esdks004.ntc.nokia.com 004VgA2Q; Mon, 19 Sep 2005 18:30:32 EEST
>Received: from megatron.ietf.org (megatron.ietf.org [132.151.6.71])
>         by mgw-ext02.nokia.com (Switch-3.1.7/Switch-3.1.7) with ESMTP id 
> j8JFUUXp002364;
>         Mon, 19 Sep 2005 18:30:31 +0300
>Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org)
>         by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32)
>         id 1EHNaq-0005Xq-FR; Mon, 19 Sep 2005 11:30:08 -0400
>Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org)
>         by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1EHNap-0005Va-5j
>         for [email-masked]; Mon, 19 Sep 2005 11:30:07 -0400
>Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1])
>         by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA03165
>         for <[email-masked]>; Mon, 19 Sep 2005 11:30:04 -0400 (EDT)
>From: "ext [email-masked]" <[email-masked]>
>Received: from mailhub.lss.emc.com ([168.159.2.31])
>         by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1EHNgS-0003kr-8D
>         for [email-masked]; Mon, 19 Sep 2005 11:35:57 -0400
>Received: from mxic2.corp.emc.com (mxic2.corp.emc.com [128.221.12.9])
>         by mailhub.lss.emc.com (Switch-3.1.6/Switch-3.1.6) with ESMTP id
>         j8JFTm1o002975; Mon, 19 Sep 2005 11:29:49 -0400 (EDT)
>Received: by mxic2.corp.emc.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19)
>         id <RT50LMNX>; Mon, 19 Sep 2005 11:29:48 -0400
>Message-ID: <[email-masked]>
>To: [email-masked], [email-masked]
>Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2005 11:29:41 -0400
>MIME-Version: 1.0
>X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19)
>Content-Type: text/plain
>X-PMX-Version: 4.7.1.128075, Antispam-Engine: 2.1.0.0,
>         Antispam-Data: 2005.9.19.14
>X-PerlMx-Spam: Gauge=, SPAM=0%, Reasons='EMC_BODY_1+ -5, EMC_FROM_00+ -0,
>         NO_REAL_NAME 0, __C230066_P5 0, __CT 0, __CT_TEXT_PLAIN 0,
>         __HAS_MSGID 0, __HAS_X_MAILER 0, __IMS_MSGID 0, __IMS_MUA 0,
>         __MIME_TEXT_ONLY 0, __MIME_VERSION 0, __SANE_MSGID 0,
>         __STOCK_CRUFT 0'
>X-Spam-Score: 0.3 (/)
>X-Scan-Signature: 4d87d2aa806f79fed918a62e834505ca
>Cc: [email-masked]
>Subject: Allocating RFC numbers at time of approval
>X-BeenThere: [email-masked]
>X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
>Precedence: list
>List-Id: Working Group Chairs <wgchairs.ietf.org>
>List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/wgchairs>,
>         <mailto:[email-masked]?subject=unsubscribe>
>List-Post: <mailto:[email-masked]>
>List-Help: <mailto:[email-masked]?subject=help>
>List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/wgchairs>,
>         <mailto:[email-masked]?subject=subscribe>
>Sender: [email-masked]
>Errors-To: [email-masked]
>Return-Path: [email-masked]
>X-OriginalArrivalTime: 19 Sep 2005 15:31:13.0477 (UTC) 
>FILETIME=[2B233F50:01C5BD2F]
>
> > If people want this to change, it means changing another long-time
> > practice by allocating RFC numbers at the time of approval.
>
>That might be a very good thing.  I have a number of interactions
>with another standards body in which speed of IETF publication of
>RFCs is an issue.  The crucial external requirement is a stable
>reference designator - having an RFC number prior to publication
>could be quite useful by taking the RFC Editor out of the critical
>path to that designator, thereby enabling publication of other
>standards that want to reference RFCs (to-be).
>
>Thanks,
>--David
>----------------------------------------------------
>David L. Black, Senior Technologist
>EMC Corporation, 176 South St., Hopkinton, MA  01748
>+1 (508) 293-7953             FAX: +1 (508) 293-7786
>[email-masked]        Mobile: +1 (978) 394-7754
>----------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: [email-masked]
> > [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Brian E Carpenter
> > Sent: Monday, September 19, 2005 4:26 AM
> > To: Scott Bradner
> > Cc: [email-masked]
> > Subject: Re: when does the RFC2026 advancement timer start?
> > IESG approval, or publication as an RFC?
> >
> > Scott Bradner wrote:
> > >>but when does the timer start?  with IESG approval, or at
> > publication as an RFC?
> > >
> > >
> > > a long-time question - the only date that shows up in the index and
> > > document is the publication date so there is no way to know
> > by looking
> > > at the RFC what the approval time was so in practice the publication
> > > date is the practical one to use
> >
> > If people want this to change, it means changing another long-time
> > practice by allocating RFC numbers at the time of approval.
> > That way the
> > RFC index could carry an "approved date" as well as a
> > publication date.
> >
> > That's a requirement the IETF would have to express very clearly
> > for it to happen.
> >
> >      Brian
> >
> >

_______________________________________________
Tools-discuss mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss