> It appears that Michael Peddemors via mailop <[email protected]> said:
> >Received: from [HIDDEN] (Authenticated sender: [email protected]) by 
> >omf05.b.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 11507A0004;
> >     Thu, 21 May 2026 15:34:18 +0000 (UTC)
> >
> >(Compromised account btw)
> >
> >If the IP was actually shown, we could detect if the source is a known 
> >threat actor..
> 
> Well, they do say Authenticated sender, which should give you a pretty strong 
> hint.

It's likely the result of a privacy policy that misunderstands that 
end-user IP addresses tend to be transient (in my experience, those 
who have static IPs are usually running their own servers anyway, 
such as business offices that may host their own SMTP servers, web 
servers, VPN servers, etc.).

As long as the IP address of the sending mail server isn't obfuscated 
(which it wouldn't be unless your mail servers are doing that), then 
that's fine, assuming of course that the mail server affecting said 
obfuscation is keep track of things -- if I see a unique string in 
place of an IP address, then I tend to assume that the obfuscating 
mail server's postmaster will have a method of decoding, decrypting, 
or otherwise looking up what the real IP address was (in case they 
need it to track down those sources, which can be justified by a 
variety of reasons).

> >X-HE-Meta: 
> >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
> > 
> >
> >My complaint is exemplified by these long headers.. When did it become 
> >okay to stop folding headers??
> 
> 1982, when RFC 821 set the maximum line length to 1000 octets.  Why do you 
> ask?

(...and the folding of long lines still remains necessary for headers 
that exceed these RFC requirements.)

1,000 remains reasonable, and includes the terminating <CR><LF> 
end-of-line sequence, so the text itself may only be 998 characters, 
albeit with one exception of the "transparency dot" that extends this 
by 1 character (I know this because I'm writing an SMTP server in C++ 
for which these details are important), but end users typically don't 
need to worry about any of this.

This maximum line length is also reified in STD10, RFC2821 (which 
obsoletes RFC821 and STD10), and RFC5321 (which obsoletes RFC2821).

> R's,
> John
> _______________________________________________
> mailop mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop


-- 
Postmaster - [email protected]
Randolf Richardson, CNA - [email protected]
Inter-Corporate Computer & Network Services, Inc.
Vancouver, Beautiful British Columbia, Canada
https://www.inter-corporate.com/


_______________________________________________
mailop mailing list
[email protected]
https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop

Reply via email to