Received: from localhost by CS.UTK.EDU with SMTP (cf v2.9s-UTK)
	id XAA10487; Sun, 7 Jan 1996 23:23:59 -0500
Received: by CS.UTK.EDU (bulk_mailer v1.3); Sun, 7 Jan 1996 23:22:25 -0500
Received: from apb.iafrica.com by CS.UTK.EDU with ESMTP (cf v2.9s-UTK)
	id XAA10026; Sun, 7 Jan 1996 23:22:22 -0500
Received: (from apb@localhost) by apb.iafrica.com (8.6.12/8.6.9) id TAA20891; Sun, 7 Jan 1996 19:26:09 +0200
Date: Sun, 7 Jan 1996 19:26:07 +0200 (GMT+0200)
From: Alan Barrett <apb@iafrica.com>
To: John Gardiner Myers <jgm+@CMU.EDU>
cc: drums@cs.utk.edu
Subject: Re: loop detection
In-Reply-To: <Ikt4twS00WBw4ICGcS@andrew.cmu.edu>
Message-ID: <Pine.NEB.3.91.960107192315.131M-100000@apb.iafrica.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII

> To do loop detection by examination, an MTA would not only need to
> scan the trace information for the signature of the MTA, it would also
> have to look for a cryptographic hash of the evelope recipient set.

I agree.

> One possible approach would be to replace the function of Received:
> with a different header, defined to be extensible.  This would,
> however, probaly be more trouble than it's worth.

We could simply define the Received header as being extensible.

Individual MTAs can already get around this by adding a structured comment
to the Received header, or assing an X-* header.

--apb (Alan Barrett)