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

Chris Lewis <> Fri, 04 December 2015 17:51 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8CA211A9044; Fri, 4 Dec 2015 09:51:06 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.343
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.343 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, RDNS_NONE=0.793, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id NE8JwM0-rFtr; Fri, 4 Dec 2015 09:51:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: from (unknown []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8DBE81A9032; Fri, 4 Dec 2015 09:51:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [] ( []) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.14.4/8.14.4/Debian-4.1ubuntu1) with ESMTP id tB4Hp36c007511 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Fri, 4 Dec 2015 12:51:04 -0500
References: <20151130042819.10658.qmail@ary.lan> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
From: Chris Lewis <>
X-Enigmail-Draft-Status: N1110
Message-ID: <>
Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2015 12:51:03 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-GB; rv: Gecko/20090812 Thunderbird/ Mnenhy/
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
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: Fri, 04 Dec 2015 17:51:06 -0000

On 12/04/2015 11:54 AM, Dave Crocker wrote:

> Extended tutorial material is well and good in the right context, but it
> is not typically considered appropriate for vetting a working group
> creation effort.  Worse, I believe the tutorial exercise has been going
> on for quite a few days now, which makes it costly, as well as wasteful.

Yes, you're quite right.

Backing up to the original mandate of this discussion:

I think it's fairly evident that the draft (and some of the discussions 
here are venturing into areas outside of the normal scope of IETF work 
(eg: social policy) and has insufficient practical experience to be 
adequately informed on how to accomplish the result, let alone the 
potential consequences from an operational/security/privacy perspective.

Work in this area can be immensely useful, but the candidate draft 
presumes too much and needs substantial re-work, probably to the point 
of starting over.  For example:

- Normative "MUST NOT" wording won't work in an IETF 
non-technical/non-interoperability policy-based supposedly optional choice.

- The draft has no understanding that the Received lines and other 
headers may well have exactly the same information in other than a 
Received "from clause".  IOW: the proposal doesn't come close to 
addressing the desired outcome.

- The draft makes no notice of the privacy, operational or security 
issues that can be impaired by the lack of such information.  IOW: the 
proposal may well do more harm than good even if only to privacy.

Before deciding what the draft should say, let alone before 
re-work/starting over, we need to have a proper discussion of the 
pros/cons of doing anything in this space, and if we do decide to do 
something in this space, identify what protocol details need to be