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

"John Levine" <> Tue, 01 December 2015 02:04 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 06F591B36BF for <>; Mon, 30 Nov 2015 18:04:20 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 1.663
X-Spam-Level: *
X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.663 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, HOST_MISMATCH_NET=0.311, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id X2jtNn4ejdgY for <>; Mon, 30 Nov 2015 18:04:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2001:470:1f06:1126::2]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 88DD11B36BC for <>; Mon, 30 Nov 2015 18:04:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: (qmail 62820 invoked from network); 1 Dec 2015 02:04:17 -0000
Received: from unknown ( by with QMQP; 1 Dec 2015 02:04:17 -0000
Date: 1 Dec 2015 02:03:55 -0000
Message-ID: <20151201020355.14995.qmail@ary.lan>
From: "John Levine" <>
In-Reply-To: <>
X-Headerized: yes
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-transfer-encoding: 8bit
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: Tue, 01 Dec 2015 02:04:20 -0000

>Sure, but in this case wouldn't deferring to the end systems argue in favor of allowing end systems to
>make the decision as to whether their private information should be exposed?

You can expose whatever you want, but if you expect anyone to accept
your mail, you will follow the rules set by the recipient systems.
This has been the way that mail has worked for many decades, and it's
not going to change now.

For a lot of the changes proposed here, the practical effect would be
that anyone foolish enough to implement them would find that the set
of systems accepting their mail shrinks dramatically.  For anyone
planning self-righteous complaints that you HAVE to accept my mail
because I'm following some standard or other, don't bother.  See, for