Re: [Shutup] [ietf-smtp] Proposed Charter for something

Dave Crocker <> Wed, 09 December 2015 21:17 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2BCB41B2DDE; Wed, 9 Dec 2015 13:17:51 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.301
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.301 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_20=-0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id WurustWA5qA4; Wed, 9 Dec 2015 13:17:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 775AD1B2DF5; Wed, 9 Dec 2015 13:17:28 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [] ( []) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id tB9LHQxl025997 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Wed, 9 Dec 2015 13:17:28 -0800
References: <20151208204227.62714.qmail@ary.lan>
From: Dave Crocker <>
Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking
Message-ID: <>
Date: Wed, 9 Dec 2015 13:17:53 -0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20151208204227.62714.qmail@ary.lan>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.0 ( []); Wed, 09 Dec 2015 13:17:28 -0800 (PST)
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Shutup] [ietf-smtp] 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: Wed, 09 Dec 2015 21:17:51 -0000

> I recently noticed RFC 5111 which describes an Exploratory Group, sort
> of half way between a WG and a RG.  This seems like a good fit.

Here's why it isn't:

     The distance between the current state of the community and the
ability to start a productive working group is not merely the matter of
clarifying a few issues.

     The community has no overall sense of privacy protection, nor
efficacy of choices, nor... well, many things.

      Absent a basic, systems-approach to guide community effort, for
doing anything but the most blindingly obvious steps for protection, the
community will be executing a random walk through a very complex face.

      This will essentially guarantee spending quite a lot of time and
money on an effort that will have little benefit.

Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking