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

Al Iverson <> Wed, 02 December 2015 03:00 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id A8C611B2BDF for <>; Tue, 1 Dec 2015 19:00:28 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.379
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.379 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id FXAFfWNyZDmL for <>; Tue, 1 Dec 2015 19:00:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c06::230]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E9C7A1B319A for <>; Tue, 1 Dec 2015 19:00:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: by ioc74 with SMTP id 74so31756274ioc.2 for <>; Tue, 01 Dec 2015 19:00:25 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=google; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; bh=bG+mT3J5XCku5Yj+YgKkFjv66uMF7f+s4m1EpL/SvYQ=; b=opdTMSv7ZZMyLVEAOEOoQqihdsEJuWrfbOH03qpSEoC9+HiT1IzFf6ErZUGyC9YQ5I F1zHEpVCE1zt6TWb4/wpd1UAp/VoDLM6n4UtSSKVgLJ0t+cZo3XkEgCmthLYmIddE5M9 MggQNRf2Xtzsg4oUrDDuk6iVYWCDYiOzZ5wiQ=
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=bG+mT3J5XCku5Yj+YgKkFjv66uMF7f+s4m1EpL/SvYQ=; b=VOHyJXxDXAUTy5cLCppDdsXW8Gnq9apNuTLbuYlSALQg3CQEsNOVs+nkAFRTlRJq72 ePldDSUP8hHi/ekFWnCI02zB2cgTUog8Zmedfz6RlwElw9trRwiIJ7uwSMptFrZIzNhf ZiNZdpOMXgWaTsHL9HHsBm0TIOJQVNGEnS1bTl6bGobNLlPVX5jD8QNn9593PuJkYwC+ de852x2YZTmINlRiwGtoZXPXoM2CFrgkoEXKoj+RWeW/0fnYW1XaZZ8vBgmTH0LfqhET 07ad78t6LHyVJRco1Fbhz31551D+/FFP7vSGBCOubQP3mR+80epQv8zbgoAwFGHYOy1q tsRw==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQl0WX8dmNZm8L+8sjZQxF0rIBq29t5MPql6vS2raE+vvT8t3SrMfZM05zEqItMjG98KdlPB
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by with SMTP id f40mr1378663iod.189.1449025225326; Tue, 01 Dec 2015 19:00:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with HTTP; Tue, 1 Dec 2015 19:00:24 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <20151130042819.10658.qmail@ary.lan> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
Date: Tue, 1 Dec 2015 21:00:24 -0600
Message-ID: <>
From: Al Iverson <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 03 Dec 2015 08:14:58 -0800
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: Wed, 02 Dec 2015 03:00:29 -0000

On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 8:30 PM, Ted Lemon <> wrote:
> Tuesday, Dec 1, 2015 6:52 PM Al Iverson wrote:
>> Is that a hobbyist configuration? Is it relevant? It sounds a bit like
>> a cat and the hat both sharing a NAT. But in a very common high volume
>> production email scenario used by email service providers, clients and
>> types of mail are segregated by sending IP address.
> My answer applies to both the gmail scenario and the private server scenario.   In both cases, putting my IP address in the Received header field means that my legitimate mail is more likely to be dropped as spam, not less likely.
>> Noted that you don't. Just adding my voice: I do want it.
> Correction: by "I do not want it," I mean "it do not want my mail legitimate getting dropped as spam," not "On a personal level, I don't like it."

1. Received headers and the IP addresses therein are currently
valuable for filtering today, for me, for others, and as I've observed
for others as big as AOL.
2. When I say "I do want it," I mean I think it would be a great loss
to lose the current information (IP address and/or received headers)
valuable for filtering purposes today under existing use cases. I want
received headers and IP address source information to remain in email
3. Your concern about your sending reputation being commingled with
your cats is already the way the world works today if your mail
streams are commingled. This is not a new problem and the proposed
potential solution of redacting IP addresses or removing received
headers takes data way instead of adding more data for filtering
purposes. It's sort of cutting off a leg because we don't like how the
arm works. Too much of spam filtering and reputation today is still IP
address-based to throw out that identifier today. Like Chris said, the
machine learning out there now almost always uses that identifier as
an input today.

Al Iverson

Al Iverson - Minneapolis - (312) 275-0130
Simple DNS Tools since 2008: &