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

Ted Lemon <> Thu, 03 December 2015 14:28 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0E5841A87A3; Thu, 3 Dec 2015 06:28:38 -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 SLB4Rdkgt059; Thu, 3 Dec 2015 06:28:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a01:7e01::f03c:91ff:fee4:ad68]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id D07111A88DE; Thu, 3 Dec 2015 06:28:34 -0800 (PST)
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="----sinikael-?=_1-14491529107950.29890814144164324"
From: Ted Lemon <>
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <20151130042819.10658.qmail@ary.lan> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
Date: Thu, 03 Dec 2015 14:28:30 +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: Thu, 03 Dec 2015 14:28:38 -0000

Thursday, Dec 3, 2015 6:37 AM Rich Kulawiec wrote:
> This is an excellent point which bears repeating.

No point bears repeating, particularly an assertion that solution X works for problems Y and Z without giving specifics.   Repeating the same assertion over and over again does not make it more true, and it is not the case that the other readers of this mailing list did not understand it when you said it the first time.

That said, as Dave Crocker pointed out, the actual topic of this thread is supposed to be whether we want to have a working group that does an analysis of this problem.   It seems that you care quite a bit about this, and given the current industry trend toward more header privacy, it seems to me that you would want to be able to take some time to do the work to provide data to back up the assertion that you are saying is so important.   So can we take your assertion as support for forming such a working group, and a willingness to participate in it?

Sent from Whiteout Mail -

My PGP key: