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

Dave CROCKER wrote:
> Folks,
>
> Occasionally, the Other Crocker ventures into email space and he chose 
> to be more thoughtful about a brief thread that was just on the IETF 
> listthat noted a message delay due to being held for moderation.
> Currently, nothing in the message (or smtp responses, of course) signals 
> this reason for delay.  (For those who haven't seen the thread, the 
> person initiating the the thread thought the delay was due to DKIM 
> processing...
> It would be quite simple to add a Received header field, when a message 
> is placed into a moderation queue, noting that fact.
> Given the history of trying to get mailing list software to support 
> common mechanisms (standards?) this might be challenging to pursue, but 
> I thought it worth raising to the group.
> Any thoughts?
I think you need to double check exactly whats going on because I 
asked specifically the list administrators in IETF-SMTP and IETF 
lists, plus specific chairs why there were delays and I was 
uncategorically told by every one of them that the mail was not being 
moderated.
In one case, it was indicated the software was customized, old and 
they had no clue what the queuing algorithm was but to indicate there 
was unexplained backlog. The mail was pushed, finally posted after 
days. In this case, I was also told that he would be traveling and any 
technical issue to be address would be 2-3 weeks later.
After that contact, new postings were immediately posted.  However, 
soon enough it was delayed once again. So this point:
   - Immediate posting
   - Eventually more delays

tells me this is more than just moderations issues.  Honestly, 
sometimes a posting from a specific address will be almost immediate, 
at least within 1-2 hours.  But then it can days.
This was 100% solved by using a different account and in my view, if 
an email domain is used that is popular with others, I believe the 
queuing software is grouping them by domain and sending out by domain 
amount factor, leaving the single domain emails at the bottom of the 
queue.
It could be a matter of how random the "moderator" gets to the 
separated queue, and just pushed a button to forward it into the list 
queue.   Well, is so, the delays in the group are too long and it 
would not be an issue to "highlight" if it was not so ridiculous to 
hold mail over 1 day if that.
In any case, for our mail system, we add a Received: line by most of 
the mail bots that move the mail from point to point:
   SMTP Receiver
   SMTP Router
   MAIL Importer
   LIST Processor

and once upon a time, for the POP3 users, a pickup Received stamp. 
This was done to explore of various MUA can allow the display of one 
or two distinct timestamps in its GUI display:
   Authorship date
   Sender Date

and for sorting reasons vs world wide time synchronization it can make 
a difference.  But if I  recall, the MUA was using the top receive 
line for something and the sorting was not "perfect."
For the idea of a Received time stamp for moderated mail, I think it 
is important to first cover how they is separated by the various 
systems.  For some, the queue is separate and don't need a special 
header to detect the moderated ones.
Personally, while it may be ok to add a normal trace for internal mail 
processing path tracking, in my strong opinion, this is not public 
material to expose if it has any sort of individual labeling or tort 
factor, especially when its done on an isolated basis and not a total 
moderated group basis.

==
HLS