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

Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie> Wed, 02 December 2015 16:44 UTC

Return-Path: <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
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 974831B2BF1; Wed, 2 Dec 2015 08:44:08 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.311
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.311 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, 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 L0w24mA_tyYK; Wed, 2 Dec 2015 08:44:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mercury.scss.tcd.ie (mercury.scss.tcd.ie [134.226.56.6]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A05C01B2BF0; Wed, 2 Dec 2015 08:44:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mercury.scss.tcd.ie (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6ACFCBE3E; Wed, 2 Dec 2015 16:44:04 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from mercury.scss.tcd.ie ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mercury.scss.tcd.ie [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id PX-tURAl3SFD; Wed, 2 Dec 2015 16:44:04 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from [134.226.36.93] (bilbo.dsg.cs.tcd.ie [134.226.36.93]) by mercury.scss.tcd.ie (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B87E5BE4D; Wed, 2 Dec 2015 16:44:02 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cs.tcd.ie; s=mail; t=1449074643; bh=upH66G2UcGENxo/sNb4ip65lQDmuuYKlv0KsWJ5JqfQ=; h=Subject:To:References:Cc:From:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=EuiU/1oHJLkF0/b8VGgs5MBf7uVLhh+nP3zzY8GizpP4rjXfvwtGPbJx1wcDVaIIb e5PvG2u/H0jlEuT/8/VZe1W9IoneL8K6mV7Rphu55oyh4h3/frV840d3fNh1hOE4/w CoYa6LefHcAqPvNyCKyhl/O1vI7IA24keI3ERxiU=
To: "Derek J. Balling" <dredd@megacity.org>, ietf-smtp@ietf.org
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> <565EBD82.2030600@pscs.co.uk> <1449065151122-b9505bf5-be5f0e83-f9cdd79b@fugue.com> <565EFD93.2060507@pscs.co.uk> <1449070095816-c64690a8-829c0c47-fd944ab9@fugue.com> <565F162F.7010109@dcrocker.net> <565F1D1F.6080307@megacity.org>
From: Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
Openpgp: id=D66EA7906F0B897FB2E97D582F3C8736805F8DA2; url=
Message-ID: <565F1FCE.9040702@cs.tcd.ie>
Date: Wed, 2 Dec 2015 16:43:58 +0000
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.3.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <565F1D1F.6080307@megacity.org>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="QrF671Dilv9MPvBM0iokoeDAUfrP1MQE5"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/shutup/ikQaLVW3PdVoBiIhn3ch8XE9eQU>
Cc: shutup@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 16:44:08 -0000


On 02/12/15 16:32, Derek J. Balling wrote:
> Why isn't this as simple as chartering the WG to go off and:
> 
> 1.) Document the answers to questions 2 and 3 above, with data
> 2.) If they so choose after doing #1, propose remedies or changes to the
> existing methodologies consistent with the data they found above

(With no hats) That seems eminently sensible to me. I'm sure
the specific text to describe the questions would need a bit
of work, but that oughtn't be too hard.

S.