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

Martijn Grooten <> Tue, 01 December 2015 19:23 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 18D5B1B2F4E; Tue, 1 Dec 2015 11:23:56 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.321
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.321 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_05=-0.5, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HELO_MISMATCH_NET=0.611, HOST_MISMATCH_COM=0.311, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id HOyPc_jbg6Cx; Tue, 1 Dec 2015 11:23:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 069721B2F34; Tue, 1 Dec 2015 11:23:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: by (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 74B6E343FE; Tue, 1 Dec 2015 19:23:53 +0000 (UTC)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple;; s=mail; t=1448997833; bh=QJ/ODCQC6N4yAxjVtgksmJoQ8ySw1Df0pRPClgvjZQU=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:In-Reply-To; b=Yv0M4I+gddiNv96pkqUUS1/az6FfQU1XXzWQUKKHKRGDM4HlrThQpmBRJuZd1gCU3 TgQG4WgESCng3fWF2YBxlwB8zgup3HDvoomnuc1bsgGHFrEL5gGPxfTFZ7mG+k/Csx sIZ8U/xYbuRFG6L3h8uD9X6WEKyVfZ/IUn16EouI=
Date: Tue, 1 Dec 2015 19:23:53 +0000
From: Martijn Grooten <>
Message-ID: <>
References: <20151130042819.10658.qmail@ary.lan> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="DocE+STaALJfprDB"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14)
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 19:23:56 -0000

On Tue, Dec 01, 2015 at 01:21:51PM -0500, Chris Lewis wrote:
> "Standardized" or not, Received lines provide a rich detail of fodder
> for filtering, whether or not the filter manages to understand what
> the received line is trying to say about where the email allegedly
> came from or how it got there.  The IP could just as easily be a
> non-reversible encrypted blob unique to the sending user that only the
> provider understands, but the receiver can filter on.
> I say "allegedly", because the actual source (personal attribution) of
> the email is generally irrelevant to filtering. Our primary goal is
> stopping the trash, a secondary goal is helping the infectee fix their
> problem, but if the provider wants to interfere with the latter, well,
> we can live with it.

I think this is a very good point. A recommendation to substitute a
"non-reversible encrypted blob" for the sender's IP address seems to me
a good balance between privacy and security.

I agree that if keeping your geolocation is a matter of life and death,
you shouldn't use email, but for me that is not a reason for the IP
address to be visible for anyone who can read the email. I think privacy
matters, even when it's not about life and death.