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

Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com> Wed, 02 December 2015 02:31 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 013CA1B314A; Tue, 1 Dec 2015 18:31:03 -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 FgJ5d8-GQFe0; Tue, 1 Dec 2015 18:31:01 -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 CACFB1B3149; Tue, 1 Dec 2015 18:31:00 -0800 (PST)
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="----sinikael-?=_1-14490234583980.09015750465914607"
From: Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>
To: shutup@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <CAGGEJxb26SSVepbfrG3Yo6RUHzvROfuhvh0iCsW2ki7KUPMc=Q@mail.gmail.com>
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> <1449005349724-ffd73ebb-f70e368e-426663a1@fugue.com> <565E2926.1050900@mustelids.ca> <1449013554783-b461d703-192d4623-50f6eda5@fugue.com> <CAGGEJxb26SSVepbfrG3Yo6RUHzvROfuhvh0iCsW2ki7KUPMc=Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 02 Dec 2015 02:30:58 +0000
Message-Id: <1449023458722-c64be47a-bac7cd73-e20f750d@fugue.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/shutup/VBnqNNfv4LJIA56AK7xAuwbnado>
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: Wed, 02 Dec 2015 02:31:03 -0000

Tuesday, Dec 1, 2015 6:52 PM Al Iverson wrote:
> Is that a hobbyist configuration? Is it relevant? It sounds a bit like
> a cat and the hat both sharing a NAT. But in a very common high volume
> production email scenario used by email service providers, clients and
> types of mail are segregated by sending IP address.

My answer applies to both the gmail scenario and the private server scenario.   In both cases, putting my IP address in the Received header field means that my legitimate mail is more likely to be dropped as spam, not less likely.

> Noted that you don't. Just adding my voice: I do want it.

Correction: by "I do not want it," I mean "it do not want my mail legitimate getting dropped as spam," not "On a personal level, I don't like it."


--
Sent from Whiteout Mail - https://whiteout.io

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