Re: Scope for self-destructing email?
John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com> Thu, 17 August 2017 13:23 UTC
Return-Path: <john-ietf@jck.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 64E3613242A for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 17 Aug 2017 06:23:17 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id jQ-j5orIiRI8 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 17 Aug 2017 06:23:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from bsa2.jck.com (bsa2.jck.com [70.88.254.51]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9A968132427 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 17 Aug 2017 06:23:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [198.252.137.10] (helo=PSB) by bsa2.jck.com with esmtp (Exim 4.82 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <john-ietf@jck.com>) id 1diKlW-000Ir1-Cm; Thu, 17 Aug 2017 09:23:14 -0400
Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2017 09:23:06 -0400
From: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>
To: ietf@ietf.org, vaibhav singh <vaibhavsinghacads@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Scope for self-destructing email?
Message-ID: <BA30F5B5AFA6760F140209A3@PSB>
In-Reply-To: <a6492c82-2b16-b087-c554-8ca38c8f5e84@huitema.net>
References: <20170816225637.4431.qmail@ary.lan> <7352544b-8626-fb30-b74f-48b62110b7cf@gmail.com> <39610B4F-8DE6-4E19-A6C8-5FAB882DD524@orthanc.ca> <CAMm+LwgqnPx2VBaoaWuU_YW547oRhQDTo48t4BokcwKqRSO+bw@mail.gmail.com> <F0EECBF6-F48E-425B-A6E8-65E5183FD36E@nbcuni.com> <CAMm+LwiT8+oiLwSX_9bekiDY6_3njbW9W_jKnP9FJkRYqwqRcQ@mail.gmail.com> <a6492c82-2b16-b087-c554-8ca38c8f5e84@huitema.net>
X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Win32)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 198.252.137.10
X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: john-ietf@jck.com
X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on bsa2.jck.com); SAEximRunCond expanded to false
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/fYk8DCtAPeVoIwlDekIIlLSZDEM>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2017 13:23:17 -0000
Folks, It seems to me that three things are emerging on this thread. (1) The original proposal and problem to be solved, at least as most of us understood it, was to allow a sender to send some sort of notification that would cause all copies of a message to be automagically destroyed. We appear to have unanimity that problem is unsolvable, at least in the general case and/or in the absence of universal trust. (2) We have considerable experience (in both email and netnew) with putting out messages with expiry dates as information for the recipient (whether expected to be acted on automatically or not). While there are important exceptions, they have never been as useful as was apparently assumed when they were adopted... to the point that the IANA registry entries for the relevant email header fields identify them as obsolete. We have less experience with the originator of an already-sent message as expired or obsolete, but no evidence has been offered so far that such a facility would be appreciably more useful than the "Expires:" header field. (3) We have now reached the stage in which people seem to be discussing alternate problems that can be solved. That isn't very hard, but those alternate problems are not the original one and little or no case is being made that the new problems are worth solving or that solutions would be useful, even if they are feasible. It seems to me that, if people believe there is a problem worth solving and if they think they have a feasible solution, we need to see an I-D that explains both, rather than continuing to circle around an ever-expanding collection of possible issues on the IETF list in the absence of such a draft. john
- Scope for self-destructing email? vaibhav singh
- Re: Scope for self-destructing email? Matthias Merkel
- Re: Scope for self-destructing email? Dave Cridland
- Re: Scope for self-destructing email? Matthias Merkel
- Re: Scope for self-destructing email? Matthew Pounsett
- Re: Scope for self-destructing email? Warren Kumari
- Re: Scope for self-destructing email? Matthias Merkel
- Re: Scope for self-destructing email? Randy Presuhn
- Re: Scope for self-destructing email? Martin Rex
- Re: Scope for self-destructing email? Brian E Carpenter
- Re: Scope for self-destructing email? John C Klensin
- Re: Scope for self-destructing email? John Levine
- Re: Scope for self-destructing email? joel jaeggli
- RE: Scope for self-destructing email? Michel Py
- Re: Scope for self-destructing email? John Levine
- Re: Scope for self-destructing email? Theodore V Faber
- Re: Scope for self-destructing email? vaibhav singh
- Re: Scope for self-destructing email? Ted Hardie
- Re: Scope for self-destructing email? Matthias Merkel
- Re: Scope for self-destructing email? John C Klensin
- Re: Scope for self-destructing email? Matthias Merkel
- Re: Scope for self-destructing email? John C Klensin
- Re: Scope for self-destructing email? Warren Kumari
- Re: Scope for self-destructing email? Ted Hardie
- Re: Scope for self-destructing email? Brian E Carpenter
- Re: Scope for self-destructing email? Lyndon Nerenberg
- Re: Scope for self-destructing email? Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: Scope for self-destructing email? Deen, Glenn (NBCUniversal)
- Re: Scope for self-destructing email? Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: Scope for self-destructing email? Christian Huitema
- Re: Scope for self-destructing email? Gary E. Miller
- Re: Scope for self-destructing email? Michael Richardson
- Re: Scope for self-destructing email? John C Klensin
- Re: Scope for self-destructing email? Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: Scope for self-destructing email? John Levine
- Re: Scope for self-destructing email? ned+ietf
- Re: Scope for self-destructing email? Adam Roach
- Re: Scope for self-destructing email? Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: Scope for self-destructing email? Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: Scope for self-destructing email? John R Levine
- Re: Scope for self-destructing email? Toerless Eckert
- Re: Scope for self-destructing email? Lloyd Wood
- Email client APIs. features. amd siupport (was: R… John C Klensin
- Re: Email client APIs. features. amd siupport (wa… Toerless Eckert
- Re: Email client APIs. features. amd siupport (wa… Phillip Hallam-Baker