Re: [Shutup] [ietf-smtp] Proposed Charter for the "SMTP Headers Unhealthy To User Privacy" WG (fwd)

Dave Crocker <> Thu, 03 December 2015 14:43 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 46EA51A894A; Thu, 3 Dec 2015 06:43:59 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.2
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id i4OaOKmJLS4C; Thu, 3 Dec 2015 06:43:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EA51B1A8952; Thu, 3 Dec 2015 06:43:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [] ( []) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id tB3EhvB6005720 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Thu, 3 Dec 2015 06:43:57 -0800
References: <20151130042819.10658.qmail@ary.lan> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
To: Chris Lewis <>
From: Dave Crocker <>
X-Enigmail-Draft-Status: N1110
Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking
Message-ID: <>
Date: Thu, 3 Dec 2015 06:44:21 -0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.0 ( []); Thu, 03 Dec 2015 06:43:57 -0800 (PST)
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Shutup] [ietf-smtp] Proposed Charter for the "SMTP Headers Unhealthy To User Privacy" WG (fwd)
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: Thu, 03 Dec 2015 14:43:59 -0000

On 12/2/2015 7:58 PM, Chris Lewis wrote:
> You will find no person more in agreement that we cannot train 100% of
> people with PSAs and similar (the fact that 419s still flow is certainly
> proof of that), but the reality is that most people do learn such things
> one way or another. 

"Most people" do not.  Not even close to most people and very nearly
never any people consistently, since the ability of humans to perform
real-time and nuanced monitoring reliably like this, reliably and over
time, borders on no ability at all.

Feel free to provide documentation to the contrary.

The issue isn't whether people generally understand the general issue.
It's whether they can develop very specific understandings and apply
them in real time, to useful effect over extended time.

> Trying to "measure" the result of training is usually futile, because
> correctly posing the questions, and getting useful answers is equally
> complicated and fraught with definitional/terminology problems. 

Right.  That should alert us all to the challenges of the training itself.

Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking