Re: [Shutup] Proposed Charter for something

Hector Santos <> Mon, 07 December 2015 19:59 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 84D901A854C for <>; Mon, 7 Dec 2015 11:59:57 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.002
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.002 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] autolearn=unavailable
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id bs2UUIZ_Km8r for <>; Mon, 7 Dec 2015 11:59:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id BC57D1A6FF6 for <>; Mon, 7 Dec 2015 11:59:54 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1;; s=tms1; a=rsa-sha1; c=simple/relaxed; l=2091; t=1449518391;; atpsh=sha1; h=Received:Received:Received:Received:Message-ID:Date:From: Organization:To:Subject:List-ID; bh=zEQx6yiZsVgfZL/g6pOM2m4Ym/s=; b=gNajH2mrtjBcHIXxKG3HSG/Z+HahCHM5Dz5yE2PN4PqcxTMgWOCW6xfJE8xKDV x6j8OJtRekgKxYb3elh9B3n3K3hwGFl2xS0V7b1Mt0I5rlodAiRWQXc16+R3BSmD KDLFvyzYTDGb3FNnoe8/9sg1rrs1ABdQ5ObuMVxySKkSY=
Received: by (Wildcat! SMTP Router v7.0.454.4b1) for; Mon, 07 Dec 2015 14:59:51 -0500
Authentication-Results:; dkim=pass header.s=tms1; adsp=pass policy=all; dmarc=pass policy=none (atps signer);
Received: from ( []) by (Wildcat! SMTP v7.0.454.4b1) with ESMTP id 1406580816.3.4008; Mon, 07 Dec 2015 14:59:50 -0500
DKIM-Signature: v=1;; s=tms1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/relaxed; l=2091; t=1449518272; h=Received:Received: Message-ID:Date:From:Organization:To:Subject:List-ID; bh=EYZoS8m zfHauNRN0zQO3+DDy46/RPRKlrmGxAH8lOj0=; b=0ezUN1bpOmtCxiDt9aFQQfE RPGEI0RXQtNHmbQJMI5jp/jJWoAYsMp8T+6QggyX5ft8Yrii1Z5iG9A4ZDbG+7dC vSfwLlzhGRFRJSOyuGxzOShNAd3cL6R9ZMyGC1Cm0sJfc6gzDslbrnmdaWKNHxpO uwYLj7+t8NSdsWndMfag=
Received: by (Wildcat! SMTP Router v7.0.454.4) for; Mon, 07 Dec 2015 14:57:52 -0500
Received: from [] ([]) by (Wildcat! SMTP v7.0.454.4) with ESMTP id 345437805.9.99524; Mon, 07 Dec 2015 14:57:51 -0500
Message-ID: <>
Date: Mon, 07 Dec 2015 14:59:42 -0500
From: Hector Santos <>
Organization: Santronics Software, Inc.
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.8.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Stephen Farrell <>,,
References: <20151207023426.54934.qmail@ary.lan> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
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 19:59:57 -0000

On 12/7/2015 5:50 AM, Stephen Farrell wrote:
> On 07/12/15 02:34, John Levine wrote:
>> This is increasingly looking like a RG, not a WG.
> Hmm, not sure. A good RG is one that'd attract an active
> research community and be relatively long lived whereas
> this seems like a bit of work where we need to do a relatively
> small and discrete amount of research on one topic. (Which
> is roughly "What'd happen if you mucked with received headers
> the MSA passes on to the rest of the mail infrastructure?")
> The way I think of it is a good RG would produce a stream
> of academic publications and then some stuff that'd be of
> use to the IETF. This sounds more like one paper's worth
> of research then stuff would be done in the IETF or not,
> depending on the findings.
> So I don't think an RG would be a good plan and a WG
> can be chartered to investigate things before proposing
> things.


I think a working group is sufficient with faster high quality results 
than a longer term research effort.  We have enough 
ietf-industry-man-years, especially in the mail industry, to determine 
what is necessary.

The charter started out with ambitious goals that included 
"well-engineered improvements to the SMTP protocol."

But then it limited itself to specific work items, including DMARC 
related items which is not enough. I believe this effort requires 
liaison with the IETF-SMTP and DNS communities, as well as the DMARC 
and SPF communities.

How about:

   o RFC5321BIS, RFC5322BIS  Working Groups
   o "Email Bible" BCP for Hosting Mail Services Working Group

The latter would produce an Modern Integrated ESMTP guide like RFC1123 
was the "hosting bible" for many internet application hosting 

But then again, I can see how the charter may want to keep it simple 
too with the specific work items:

  o New I-D to relax the STD10/RFC5321.Received MUST requirement,
  o New I-D for "Cryptographic Protection of E-mail Headers" (memoryhole)
  o Soliciting new ideas (any I-Ds?) for Loop Detections.