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

Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com> Tue, 01 December 2015 16:54 UTC

Return-Path: <mellon@fugue.com>
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 E68ED1A0AF8; Tue, 1 Dec 2015 08:54:57 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.912
X-Spam-Level:
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 mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 12wWuk4G-Ict; Tue, 1 Dec 2015 08:54:56 -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 96E031ACDFA; Tue, 1 Dec 2015 08:54:55 -0800 (PST)
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="----sinikael-?=_1-14489888920950.38193703768774867"
From: Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>
To: shutup@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <605ee74e-863d-47cb-9089-fb83e13e4e38@gulbrandsen.priv.no>
References: <20151130042819.10658.qmail@ary.lan> <1448858775386-ceecd236-8b11ac04-a03b4438@fugue.com> <glJrvFDUtDXWFA87@highwayman.com> <1448923888960-cb7e590f-f443f8dd-7ec594e1@fugue.com> <565CD58D.9080403@dcrocker.net> <1448924778159-4b16d8e4-631c41b1-52b0fbf2@fugue.com> <605ee74e-863d-47cb-9089-fb83e13e4e38@gulbrandsen.priv.no>
Date: Tue, 01 Dec 2015 16:54:52 +0000
Message-Id: <1448988892426-3d90e6a3-1691ce74-693e6fae@fugue.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/shutup/lJEsTK73tgkrG3y28RBREerL430>
Cc: ietf-smtp@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: Tue, 01 Dec 2015 16:54:58 -0000

Tuesday, Dec 1, 2015 7:27 AM Arnt Gulbrandsen wrote:
>> Sure, but in this case wouldn't deferring to the end systems> argue in favor of allowing end systems to make the decision as> to whether their private information should be exposed?
> 
> As I see it, that's not the question here. The question is: Should there be an RFC that can be used/misused to apply pressure regarding trace fields etc?

Yes, I agree that this is what we are discussing.   I think it's pretty clear that for Received header fields that refer to the IP address of the end-user, the answer is "yes, there should be such an RFC."   I haven't heard anyone seriously propose that this is not true, although I'd be interested to hear such an argument!


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

My PGP key: https://keys.whiteout.io/mellon@fugue.com