North American Network Operators Group|
Date Prev | Date Next |
Date Index |
Thread Index |
Author Index |
Re: comast email issues, who else has them?
- From: william(at)elan.net
- Date: Mon Sep 11 13:42:36 2006
On Mon, 11 Sep 2006, Tony Finch wrote:
That suggestion is likely to be contrary to SMTP design. Received trace
fields are for use of recording of where data that was RFC2822 formatted
came from and how. Use of these fields also assumes that start of email
transmission took place somewhere else. The "with" clause in Received is
used to indicate the "transport" protocol but assumes that data itself
On Sat, 2 Sep 2006, Fergie wrote:
Ack: X-Originating-From should be mandatory.
Far better to use a Received: header stating HTTP in the "with" protocol
field. (And the IANA registry should be updated to include that as one of
the standard values.)
is already properly formatted (compare to that the same type of L7 protocol
can use either TCP or UDP; this is not perfect fit but gives you some idea).
In case of web-based email services however, the start of the transmission
is the webserver which is the one putting data in RFC2822 format and
initiating the transmission. So use of "with HTTP" is inappropriate here -
the only case where "with HTTP" would be appropriate is when email client
like Thunderbird creates entire email message as it normally would but
instead of using SMTP or SUBMIT to send it, it is sending the data using
HTTP PUT or SOAP or XML-RPC - this is not the case with web-based email.
If you really want to indicate the source of transmission for non-SMTP
origination point, the best is to create new trace field for this purpose.
With Received the closest clause would be "via" but I think via is
largely for use with complete message being gatewayed through non-SMTP
protocol and this is probably not the correct use of it either.