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

[Ted Lemon <[e-mail]>]

Tuesday, Dec 1, 2015 4:10 PM Richard Clayton wrote:
> If you want to have very limited data in your email header fields then
> you should look at the systems that you operate yourself and clean up
> the information at that point. You'll probably get a poorer delivery
> experience when sending to MAGY and others -- but that's your tradeoff.

Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 01DDB1B2F31; Tue, 1 Dec 2015 11:10:08 -0800 (PST)
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 BPlsDC_M90ws; Tue, 1 Dec 2015 11:10:06 -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 CDD061AD481; Tue, 1 Dec 2015 11:10:05 -0800 (PST)

Here are the Received: headers from the previous message I sent to the list.   As you can see, there is no Received header at all for the submit server.   My submit server doesn't add one, because there's no good reason to.   I have had zero issues with mail I send not being delivered to any of the big providers.   When I do have issues, the issues I have tend to be really small servers (typically IETF participants who, like me, run their own mail servers) that have all sorts of exciting steampunk gadgets filtering spam.

The issues that I have tend to be that mail to those users is delayed, not that it never arrives.   It's their choice to set up greylisting, and slowing down the reply rate for discussions like this isn't a bad thing, so I really wouldn't describe this as a "poorer delivery experience."


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

My PGP key: https://keys.whiteout.io/[e-mail]