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

Ted Lemon <> Fri, 04 December 2015 19:37 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3E81F1B32CF; Fri, 4 Dec 2015 11:37:42 -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 nxnjSXEw8ykS; Fri, 4 Dec 2015 11:37:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a01:7e01::f03c:91ff:fee4:ad68]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id DFCAF1B32CE; Fri, 4 Dec 2015 11:37:39 -0800 (PST)
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="----sinikael-?=_1-14492578569520.5359358440618962"
From: Ted Lemon <>
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <20151130042819.10658.qmail@ary.lan> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
Date: Fri, 04 Dec 2015 19:37:36 +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: Fri, 04 Dec 2015 19:37:42 -0000

Friday, Dec 4, 2015 11:54 AM Dave Crocker wrote:
> Hence, queries of the 'show your work' type move into the realm of
> etended tutorial to non-experts, rather than helping to the vetting of
> foundational issues for creating a working group.

I share your discomfort.   However, my concern with the approach of simply refusing to answer questions on the grounds you state is twofold: first, it excludes any participation by stakeholders other than anti-spam developers, and there are other stakeholders.   Second, it preserves the status quo, which is clearly broken.   By which I do not mean that you all are not doing good work: what I mean is that because you are so effective at minimizing spam, there is no incentive to actually clean up many of the messes you are working around at the moment.

>From my perspective, quite a bit of useful information has already been shared as a result of this discussion, and it would be nice if that information were collected somewhere.   I think that there's more work to be done.   It may be bothersome to folks who don't feel that these questions need to be answered, but I don't think it's realistic to think that if you just protest loudly enough, they will stop getting asked, or that the practice of header redaction will not become more widespread.

Sent from Whiteout Mail -

My PGP key: