[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Received header field for special processing, such as "held for moderation".

To: dcrocker@xxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: Received header field for special processing, such as "held for moderation".
From: Frank Ellermann <hmdmhdfmhdjmzdtjmzdtzktdkztdjz@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2011 11:50:06 +0200
Cc: SMTP Interest Group <ietf-smtp@xxxxxxx>
Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type; bh=0iMEEtc5bL5tN+axf3PoXYe3+fKmsrRA6cpx+h2M+Xo=; b=oxsFq6x9ipP5kcQ4NPHXbbbBH31YTm/OA5Q7NEk+vKljj03OyjT/s4V4CHRxKCPB+k r6E8irb5LTizEI+AWJObXx5N+Z8RTFeXRDAImakWCxnEetSlzTtRl8WIH1mxBYHJg0LW iaW6jd5km9UA6LIBX8VWnXqI6DN4r0INnj8ic=
In-reply-to: <4EA65DFB.3090901@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
List-archive: <http://www.imc.org/ietf-smtp/mail-archive/>
List-id: <ietf-smtp.imc.org>
List-unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-smtp-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe>
References: <4EA65DFB.3090901@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: owner-ietf-smtp@xxxxxxxxxxxx

On 25 October 2011 08:58, Dave CROCKER wrote:

> Any thoughts?

Good idea.  I vaguely recall that I was able to figure
it out with the complete header fields some years ago,
there used to be two Received: trace fields for IETF
servers with a big delay for moderation OR technical
issues.  And I didn't believe that DKIM could cause a
delay of more than a few seconds, certainly not hours,
but the posted evidence was incomplete.

-Frank

References:
- Received header field for special processing, such as "held for moderation".
  - From: Dave CROCKER

Prev by Date: Re: retry=
Next by Date: Re: Received header field for special processing, such as "held for moderation".
Previous by thread: RE: Received header field for special processing, such as "held for moderation".
Next by thread: Re: Received header field for special processing, such as "held for moderation".
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread