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

"John Levine" <> Tue, 01 December 2015 14:55 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id F1ED81A916B for <>; Tue, 1 Dec 2015 06:55:20 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 1.663
X-Spam-Level: *
X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.663 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, HOST_MISMATCH_NET=0.311, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 4gWmmIATE0Cr for <>; Tue, 1 Dec 2015 06:55:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2001:470:1f06:1126::2]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E4E771A0100 for <>; Tue, 1 Dec 2015 06:55:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: (qmail 13664 invoked from network); 1 Dec 2015 14:55:14 -0000
Received: from unknown ( by with QMQP; 1 Dec 2015 14:55:14 -0000
Date: 1 Dec 2015 14:54:52 -0000
Message-ID: <20151201145452.17944.qmail@ary.lan>
From: "John Levine" <>
In-Reply-To: <>
X-Headerized: yes
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-transfer-encoding: 8bit
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 14:55:21 -0000

>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.

A few years ago, there was a largish cable ISP* that was gushing spam
from customers through their MTAs and ignored the complaints.  I forgt
whether it was bots, or just customers using desktop spam blasters.
So AOL started 4xx soft failing mail that originated at the naughty
customers, and the ISP's mail servers predictably melted down.  That
finally got their attention and the situation soon improved for
everyone, not just AOL.


* - I know who it was but since they've mended their ways there's no
need to embarass them here.