IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com> Tue, 01 December 2015 23:55 UTC

Return-Path: <mellon@fugue.com>
X-Original-To: shutup@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: shutup@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2DE441B2ADE; Tue, 1 Dec 2015 15:55:05 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.912
X-Spam-Level:
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 mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id VKBgo9VnhPR6; Tue, 1 Dec 2015 15:55:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: from fugue.com (mail-2.fugue.com [IPv6:2a01:7e01::f03c:91ff:fee4:ad68]) by ietfa.amsl.com (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 <mellon@fugue.com>
To: shutup@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <20151201234951.GA8176@lapsedordinary.net>
References: <20151130042819.10658.qmail@ary.lan> <1448858775386-ceecd236-8b11ac04-a03b4438@fugue.com> <01PTPUIP3IUK01729W@mauve.mrochek.com> <11d014e5-9a6a-4b78-92a1-8e0a1e0a905d@gulbrandsen.priv.no> <lGTaHvC8ygXWFAuu@highwayman.com> <20151201234951.GA8176@lapsedordinary.net>
Date: Tue, 01 Dec 2015 23:55:01 +0000
Message-Id: <1449014101455-fe92733c-7c74504b-77e15fc4@fugue.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/shutup/SjB8QMR9DR78aCc0v9TDjRnV1y4>
Cc: ietf-smtp@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Shutup] [ietf-smtp] Proposed Charter for the "SMTP Headers Unhealthy To User Privacy" WG (fwd)
X-BeenThere: shutup@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: SMTP Headers Unhealthy To User Privacy <shutup.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/shutup>, <mailto:shutup-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/shutup/>
List-Post: <mailto:shutup@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:shutup-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/shutup>, <mailto:shutup-request@ietf.org?subject=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 - https://whiteout.io

My PGP key: https://keys.whiteout.io/mellon@fugue.com

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email