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

Ted Lemon <> Tue, 01 December 2015 16:54 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id E68ED1A0AF8; Tue, 1 Dec 2015 08:54:57 -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 12wWuk4G-Ict; Tue, 1 Dec 2015 08:54:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a01:7e01::f03c:91ff:fee4:ad68]) by (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 <>
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <20151130042819.10658.qmail@ary.lan> <> <> <> <> <> <>
Date: Tue, 01 Dec 2015 16:54:52 +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: 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 -

My PGP key: