Re: [Shutup] [ietf-smtp] Proposed Charter for something

Martijn Grooten <> Thu, 10 December 2015 16:40 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8DD5B1A0235; Thu, 10 Dec 2015 08:40:47 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.079
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.079 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, 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 JUVbJmKr97bC; Thu, 10 Dec 2015 08:40:42 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4821D1A88E4; Thu, 10 Dec 2015 08:40:42 -0800 (PST)
Received: by (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 7CB8F343FE; Thu, 10 Dec 2015 16:40:41 +0000 (UTC)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple;; s=mail; t=1449765641; bh=RpKTCttA7aDNG23VX1taXRLUa5+qJmKZUmYqGrIFf+w=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:In-Reply-To; b=rsOkrf6xbUwldWYMETtnDDaDjfBbLl8AaqR1q+1l1cidLaIpkkwmaRYnMq8xkzTs9 AFOuvmdyQ5rP236Sbk6q/KJbROFJV2gfS7oJtl9vS2lH9mAzbJVTcbBI1BNw8xUPHm MaKywBh20Y5K/wapk8ao192CJZPvHSM1c4LKBjkw=
Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2015 16:40:41 +0000
From: Martijn Grooten <>
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <20151210151541.68326.qmail@ary.lan>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="45Z9DzgjV8m4Oswq"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20151210151541.68326.qmail@ary.lan>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14)
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Shutup] [ietf-smtp] Proposed Charter for something
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: Thu, 10 Dec 2015 16:40:47 -0000

On Thu, Dec 10, 2015 at 03:15:41PM -0000, John Levine wrote:
> >The real question is: would spam filters still be
> >able to do a good enough job if we removed these things?
> No, it's not.  The question is whether there would be an overall
> gain in users' privacy since providers would likely be less able
> to combat phishing and other privacy attacks.
> Spam filtering is just part of it, and in this case not where the
> most important effects would be.

I meant "spam filters" in the broad sense, including all human and
non-human activity against spam, though should have made that clear.

Are there other parts of the email headers that are important to
combat phishing and other "privacy attacks", apart from the submission
IP address? And how much does the actual IP address matter, as opposed
to a "cryptographic blob" of said address, that can be "decrypted" by
the ISP and is constant for some time for a given (user,IP) combination.