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

Ted Lemon <> Tue, 01 December 2015 15:42 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id E96BC1ACCEA; Tue, 1 Dec 2015 07:42:27 -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 GqmNZvjzR-NA; Tue, 1 Dec 2015 07:42:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a01:7e01::f03c:91ff:fee4:ad68]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7F5E11ACCE6; Tue, 1 Dec 2015 07:42:20 -0800 (PST)
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="----sinikael-?=_1-14489845368790.5686263863462955"
From: Ted Lemon <>
In-Reply-To: <20151201145452.17944.qmail@ary.lan>
References: <20151201145452.17944.qmail@ary.lan>
Date: Tue, 01 Dec 2015 15:42:16 +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 15:42:28 -0000

Tuesday, Dec 1, 2015 9:54 AM John Levine wrote:
> >I think it might be helpful if someone would name or describe a largish 
>>site or service provider that uses Recived, and describe how in useful 
>>detail. "A spam/virus filter company that handles mail for about x million 
>>mailboxes does ...", that kind of thing.
> AOL famously uses the second received header to filter mail from
> providers that are too large to block but too lazy or incompetent to
> do proper outbound filtering on their users' mail.

Can you describe (or refer to a description) of what was done in sufficient technical detail that we can evaluate whether or not whatever gets proposed here would break that functionality, and also whether there was any other way to accomplish the same purpose?   I don't doubt that this story is true, and worth considering, but at the level of detail you've provided, it's just a story.

Sent from Whiteout Mail -

My PGP key: