Re: [Shutup] Proposed Charter for something

Ted Lemon <> Mon, 07 December 2015 03:44 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 59DE71B2D37; Sun, 6 Dec 2015 19:44:11 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.912
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.912 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id l0e7IbeybX4W; Sun, 6 Dec 2015 19:44:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a01:7e01::f03c:91ff:fee4:ad68]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9D0441B2D36; Sun, 6 Dec 2015 19:44:08 -0800 (PST)
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="----sinikael-?=_1-14494598449520.06005436880514026"
From: Ted Lemon <>
In-Reply-To: <20151207023426.54934.qmail@ary.lan>
References: <20151207023426.54934.qmail@ary.lan>
Date: Mon, 07 Dec 2015 03:44:04 +0000
Message-Id: <>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Shutup] Proposed Charter for something
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: SMTP Headers Unhealthy To User Privacy <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 07 Dec 2015 03:44:11 -0000

Sunday, Dec 6, 2015 9:34 PM John Levine wrote:
> For example, how much new information is there in the date stamp in a
> Received header in the usual case that it's a few seconds after the
> timestamp in the Date: header?  On the other hand, most Received
> headers have a unique ID that's really handy to identify the message
> and the path it took (That's how you tell who's sending spam reports
> from AOL and Yahoo, even though they redact all the addresses.)

Bear in mind that the date header field isn't modified in transit, so it can in principle be in the encrypted blob, and not in the postcard headers.

> That would be a useful catalog, and we can think about models that
> look at the net personal information, and diagnostic and anti-abuse
> information provided by various combinations of features or the lack
> thereof.  That would be interesting on its own, and would give us a
> much better foundation from which to consider changes that could
> produce an actual overall privacy improvement.

Agreed, but I don't see why you think this is an RG and not a WG.

Sent from Whiteout Mail -

My PGP key: