IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

"Christian Huitema" <huitema@huitema.net> Wed, 02 December 2015 19:50 UTC

Return-Path: <huitema@huitema.net>
X-Original-To: shutup@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: shutup@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F33AE1B29D9 for <shutup@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 2 Dec 2015 11:50:11 -0800 (PST)
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, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001] autolearn=unavailable
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 9naV_camVg2X for <shutup@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 2 Dec 2015 11:50:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: from xsmtp03.mail2web.com (xsmtp03.mail2web.com [168.144.250.223]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3FC6F1AD09A for <shutup@ietf.org>; Wed, 2 Dec 2015 11:50:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [10.5.2.31] (helo=xmail09.myhosting.com) by xsmtp03.mail2web.com with esmtps (TLS-1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from <huitema@huitema.net>) id 1a4CLD-0000GC-ST for shutup@ietf.org; Wed, 02 Dec 2015 13:41:24 -0500
Received: (qmail 14203 invoked from network); 2 Dec 2015 18:41:22 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO huitema2) (Authenticated-user:_huitema@huitema.net@[131.107.147.15]) (envelope-sender <huitema@huitema.net>) by xmail09.myhosting.com (qmail-ldap-1.03) with ESMTPA for <ietf-smtp@ietf.org>; 2 Dec 2015 18:41:22 -0000
From: Christian Huitema <huitema@huitema.net>
To: 'Richard Clayton' <richard@highwayman.com>, ietf-smtp@ietf.org
References: <20151130042819.10658.qmail@ary.lan> <1448858775386-ceecd236-8b11ac04-a03b4438@fugue.com> <01PTPUIP3IUK01729W@mauve.mrochek.com> <11d014e5-9a6a-4b78-92a1-8e0a1e0a905d@gulbrandsen.priv.no> <lGTaHvC8ygXWFAuu@highwayman.com> <565EBD82.2030600@pscs.co.uk> <1449065151122-b9505bf5-be5f0e83-f9cdd79b@fugue.com> <565EFD93.2060507@pscs.co.uk> <1449070095816-c64690a8-829c0c47-fd944ab9@fugue.com> <565F162F.7010109@dcrocker.net> <565F1D1F.6080307@megacity.org> <565F1FCE.9040702@cs.tcd.ie> <565F2262.9080002@dcrocker.net> <565F236A.8060609@megacity.org> <565F2959.2080606@dcrocker.net> <565F2B73.3000407@megacity.org> <s0K4btEabzXWFA88@highwayman.com>
In-Reply-To: <s0K4btEabzXWFA88@highwayman.com>
Date: Wed, 02 Dec 2015 10:41:32 -0800
Message-ID: <09ca01d12d31$112219f0$33664dd0$@huitema.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 15.0
Thread-Index: AQHQTY9q0QzQziT/XW3kp2qSufFoDwEVmeDFAXxnC/ECirALKAG7utnTAfV0aTAA4KkRkwLmJ7o7ActuDx0B/BxLTwJ6zHcrAWqRrr8DNG/DZgKgBlmIAVdv0SMCOeWnoQG/BdmKnb6R/9A=
Content-Language: en-us
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/shutup/AE4ehNksOf9eapJtKalc-N_ik5s>
Cc: shutup@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Shutup] [ietf-smtp] Proposed Charter for the "SMTP Headers Unhealthy To User Privacy" WG (fwd)
X-BeenThere: shutup@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: SMTP Headers Unhealthy To User Privacy <shutup.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/shutup>, <mailto:shutup-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/shutup/>
List-Post: <mailto:shutup@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:shutup-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/shutup>, <mailto:shutup-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 02 Dec 2015 19:50:12 -0000

> A concern would be that some of the enthusiasm for the process is people
> may be planning to use the existence of an RFC as a stick with which to
beat
> into submission the implementors and the developers ("but you have to do
> this, the IETF said so"). Now that may be the right way to proceed, but
I'm
> not entirely sure if the implementors and developers would entirely
concur.

What makes you think that the pressure is not happening right now? Why do
you think that so many of the big-name e-mail providers are already
redacting some of the "Received" information? Do you really believe that the
pressure would stop if the IETF just remained silent? 

The WG process will ensure that the IETF provides careful and balanced
guidance, and hopefully uniform implementations. The absence of IETF process
will only ensure that the pressure and implementations will happen without
IETF guidance. 

-- Christian Huitema

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email