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

Dave Crocker <> Mon, 30 November 2015 23:02 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id B45ED1B3272; Mon, 30 Nov 2015 15:02:39 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.2
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id K7YGEBp1v2ZU; Mon, 30 Nov 2015 15:02:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7F4A01B3271; Mon, 30 Nov 2015 15:02:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [] ( []) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id tAUN2b1p014800 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Mon, 30 Nov 2015 15:02:37 -0800
References: <20151130042819.10658.qmail@ary.lan> <> <> <>
To: Ted Lemon <>,
From: Dave Crocker <>
X-Enigmail-Draft-Status: N1110
Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking
Message-ID: <>
Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2015 15:02:37 -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: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.0 ( []); Mon, 30 Nov 2015 15:02:37 -0800 (PST)
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: Mon, 30 Nov 2015 23:02:39 -0000

On 11/30/2015 2:51 PM, Ted Lemon wrote:
> Why would I be relaying mail on?   Only for a mailing list.   For the mailing list, what I want SPF to validate is that the mail came from the mailing list. 

That's a common misconception.  It leaves out a variety of other, valid

The most obvious is mailbox aliasing, such as for vanity addresses such
as university alumni associations provide.

Email is store and forward, and this can and does mean transit across
/multiple/ independent administrative domains.  The fact that the vast
majority of mail goes directly (one hop) from origin AD to the
recipient's AD does not mean it is reasonable for anyone to make
systemic design decisions that constrain that fundamental flexibility.

IMO an essential design benefit in many/most aspects of Internet
technologies is avoiding making any more global assumptions (or
requirements) than essential.  "Deferring to the end systems" is a very
broad-based design requirement and it includes minimizing assumptions
about the transit infrastructure.

Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking