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

Ted Lemon <> Tue, 01 December 2015 23:55 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2DE441B2ADE; Tue, 1 Dec 2015 15:55:05 -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 VKBgo9VnhPR6; Tue, 1 Dec 2015 15:55:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a01:7e01::f03c:91ff:fee4:ad68]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 190321B2ACF; Tue, 1 Dec 2015 15:55:02 -0800 (PST)
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="----sinikael-?=_1-14490141011360.4420234963763505"
From: Ted Lemon <>
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <20151130042819.10658.qmail@ary.lan> <> <> <> <> <>
Date: Tue, 01 Dec 2015 23:55:01 +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: Tue, 01 Dec 2015 23:55:05 -0000

Tuesday, Dec 1, 2015 6:49 PM Martijn Grooten wrote:
> Sure, making such changes on your own is probably going to hurt more                                                                                                                                                                          
> than it helps. Which seems a good argument in favour of some kind of                                                                                                                                                                          
> RFC, or at least a WG discussing whether one is needed.                                                                                                                                                                                       

Yup, what I'm getting from this conversation is that we ought to try to gain a bit more clarity than we currently have on this question.   I'm hearing a lot of hand-wavey protests, but when I try to dig deeper it's not clear that much analysis has actually occurred.   That analysis would be worthwhile to do and to write up as an informational draft.   I think the informational draft should _make no recommendations_ but should just talk about the various use cases.

Sent from Whiteout Mail -

My PGP key: