Re: [perpass] draft-josefsson-email-received-privacy

[Stephen Farrell <[e-mail]>]

Ned,

On 22/10/15 05:27, [e-mail] wrote:
> In summary, the present proposal as presently written is a nonstarter because
> it breaks critical email functionality: The ability to detect and block mail
> loops. In also unnecessarily causes the removal of highly useful timing and
> trace information. An approach based on current inductry practices should be
> considered instead and specific guidance on when the mechanism should be
> employed needs to be given.

I have to say that conclusion, or something like it, seems reasonable
even if the presentation of the argument leading up to it read to me
as being quite needlessly aggressive.

Ned - Is that an offer to help the authors e.g. by offering new text
or describing to them in more detail what others have done (maybe
via pointers) so the authors can document that better?

S.

PS: I would assume this draft will end up being processed via dispatch
(or however the art area continue handling small-new-work) so that it
will definitely get review from appropriate folks before being done.