Re: [Mailsec] [ietf-smtp] Good to see new list, comments about the "purpose"

Dave Crocker <> Wed, 29 July 2020 16:19 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id C018D3A09E1; Wed, 29 Jul 2020 09:19:26 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id zRLuqbCYMOiR; Wed, 29 Jul 2020 09:19:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0E56D3A094E; Wed, 29 Jul 2020 09:19:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] ( []) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.14.4/8.14.4/Debian-4.1ubuntu1.1) with ESMTP id 06TGLo5E001815 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Wed, 29 Jul 2020 09:21:50 -0700
To: Michael Peddemors <>,,
References: <>
From: Dave Crocker <>
Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking
Message-ID: <>
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2020 09:19:07 -0700
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.10.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Mailsec] [ietf-smtp] Good to see new list, comments about the "purpose"
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2020 16:19:27 -0000

On 7/29/2020 9:08 AM, Michael Peddemors wrote:
> I believe this is an opportunity, and the BOF should consider that the 
> working group's mandate be extended larger than originally suggested.
> As pointed out previously on other threads, having a working group that 
> covers the whole email core, would enable this working group to tackle 
> more wide ranging email problems, that are important to the internet 
> community.

That would be an excellent way to avoid getting the primary task done, 
which is to get the two, primary specification elevated to full 
standard.  It's a variation on attempting to boil the ocean.

It's not that the larger scope isn't worthy, it's that it isn't practical.

After the primary task is completed, it might make sense to consider 
rechartering, for a scope of the type you suggest.  But not before then.


Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking