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

Ted Lemon <> Wed, 02 December 2015 19:18 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id B12F41ACEEC; Wed, 2 Dec 2015 11:18:03 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.912
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.912 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 6CibXCyYLNm6; Wed, 2 Dec 2015 11:18:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a01:7e01::f03c:91ff:fee4:ad68]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 05B5E1ACEE0; Wed, 2 Dec 2015 11:18:00 -0800 (PST)
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="----sinikael-?=_1-14490838769280.24943302781321108"
From: Ted Lemon <>
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <20151130042819.10658.qmail@ary.lan> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
Date: Wed, 02 Dec 2015 19:17:56 +0000
Message-Id: <>
MIME-Version: 1.0
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: Wed, 02 Dec 2015 19:18:03 -0000

Wednesday, Dec 2, 2015 1:22 PM Richard Clayton wrote:
> I know many in Law Enforcement who are extremely pained that what used
> to be a trivial exercise in processing header field data from MAGY to
> assess whether an investigation will be easy is no longer practical.
> This has put a big delay in the way of determining how best to pursue an
> email related lead (or indeed to decide whether or not a case is
> tractable at all).
> That may not pain you, but I assure you it pains the victims, and no I'm
> not going to spend the rest of the day providing references as to the
> accuracy of that claim. but reading this might give some clues:
> <
> cybercrime/>

Does the linked article say anything to support the point you made above?   It's a study about the emotional impact of fraud, which I can tell you from personal experience, without reading the study, is pretty overwhelming, for many of the reasons cited in the study.

This is why I don't want 419 scammers to be able to scrape identifying info about my elderly relatives off of their email.

As for the cops to whom you refer, who aren't mentioned in the article you mentioned, they would probably benefit from reading the RFC we've been talking about writing, since I suspect some of the information they need would be captured in it.

Sent from Whiteout Mail -

My PGP key: