--On Thursday, January 09, 2014 06:00 -0800 The IESG
<iesg-secretary@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> We will soon be changing the header fields used in IETF Last
> Call messages sent to the IETF Announce mailing list.
>...
> This message will be repeated daily using both the old and new
> header. This instance of the message was sent using the old
> header. Please ensure you receive both versions.
> These messages will cease, and all Last Call messages to this
> list will switch to using the new header on or shortly after
> 2014-01-24.
>...
> The specific changes are:
>...
> New:
>
> From: The IESG <noreply@xxxxxxxx>
> To: IETF-Announce:;
> Reply-To: IETF Discussion List <ietf@xxxxxxxx>
>
> and the message sent using the New header fields will also be
> Bcc-ed to <ietf-announce@xxxxxxxx>
Folks,
Three observations based on some small experience with Internet
mail and various MUAs.
(1) If someone is going to have or detect problems with this
change, it would be very useful to identify what you are putting
in the envelope, especially the backward-pointing parts of the
envelope. If someone had to start tracking through logs to
identify what happened to a missing message, knowing, e.g.,
whether ietf or AMS domains were being used in EHLO and MAIL
command arguments might be a big help.
(2) Especially given the history of configuration failures that
have periodically allowed random parties to post messages or
replies to IETF-Announce, the reasons for the change in "From:"
and "Reply-to;" fields are obvious and probably should have been
thought of and adopted years ago. The posting filters will
still be needed (I hope we are not going to rely on the security
through obscurity of a secret address), but this should at least
stop the accidents.
However, despite the fact that group syntax, including that for
empty lists, has been part of the mail header specs for well
over 30 years, we know that many systems have had trouble with
messages that contain only an empty group indication. Those
systems are not just non-conforming MUA or mailstore
implementations (or MTAs that violate the SMTP spec and look at
headers in transit) or antispam systems of various qualities.
They including a variety of coded and ad hoc mail classification
and filtering arrangements that may require special arrangements
for such addresses. Given the risks and potential problems,
I'd like to hear a little more justification for switching to
group syntax than the apparent "the IESG decided on this and is
announcing it to the community".
(3) If someone actually does discover that they have a problem
and are dependent on a third-party supplier to get it patched, 2
1/2 weeks are unlikely to be sufficient.
I hope this comment doesn't turn into a distraction, but, when
announcements like this appear with no prior discussion with the
community, I wonder what the process was that produced the
decision and whether we've abandoned the principle that the IESG
is supposed to be steering and determining and reflecting
community consensus, not making decisions and pronouncements in
secret and top-down.
best,
john