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

"Derek J. Balling" <> Wed, 02 December 2015 17:33 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id EE3C61ACCE0 for <>; Wed, 2 Dec 2015 09:33:49 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.3
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.3 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, J_CHICKENPOX_21=0.6] autolearn=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id VIjbDHUGNTKJ for <>; Wed, 2 Dec 2015 09:33:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c09::22b]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E78341ACC86 for <>; Wed, 2 Dec 2015 09:33:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: by qkas77 with SMTP id s77so19335989qka.0 for <>; Wed, 02 Dec 2015 09:33:42 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20150623; h=subject:to:references:cc:from:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-type; bh=5iEa2svKZxfDdamOgTekgui8LdrcxscCuFgsGR30H7I=; b=aXJ64fLSnK4Kom3pGkY2RxE90s/v/tnwU1vi+UoPJ0q9rDbOaOQn/XkhLsjwx1rBko R0BMWZrPlleJvRsSvrwW+XqqP49gvTCxFl29WIk2udYG60Qe6iwAacOTI5QJ43QyfdTO ZIBBRz3TKkAIA71AhHZqQmLS/2qkcvxZbOXMLppbZcADle4gpRDySUiRWM8HlEiZUEGo qe6TChfW2hNyWdxrRiv8H/5TOmvDPkqoj0b/n/SCmpQtUQ3+eHePveMIeflmMOD1VLH8 Avv9wXXjIhXyi/WpgHj1ZaYTqRQXERq0FL01uIWDO0A1BP+Ij+LAk4Kgm1cjEekWFsU2 QgcQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:cc:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-type; bh=5iEa2svKZxfDdamOgTekgui8LdrcxscCuFgsGR30H7I=; b=XfyF+iMOocF1EmanGHuuRTXYd04zaHSlUkfOTGOITku+NrRI2v0XSYklfP+0fQ/Df1 3qO+xZK7T5+XM9iGq03M9/hnmVYdgzCtp+Bv2xHGOBBFGiZLXKVxeZzSPgdrZAk8BTMu vRkVOa3yM5prytHcJK2PxKTS61c8Ou+ALD8HN8HChDs2+fYAAbmPoZ+DhdXFINWE5eRo pBM/VDDUCyIsCDOGRkOKdVFScnXrVe6uV+NzTeSv2A7uaOCl4ImWI5tv5CZk7z37p2g0 CrC+La83Z5vTP6MtGwHbTZFdDACAsBAoNcCPxpr7VdJdPsPIVWMCKeptgNITSCdGDVdN D+xQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnt99EH77fZQUU9iWRPAKZac+EcqqdvZlnJGUAWFEEaZ1IZ8iElXIXB/JimPgj2Q3Ilojz2
X-Received: by with SMTP id v10mr5149879qka.14.1449077622808; Wed, 02 Dec 2015 09:33:42 -0800 (PST)
Received: from Akebono.local ( []) by with ESMTPSA id q133sm1597764qhq.20.2015. (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Wed, 02 Dec 2015 09:33:40 -0800 (PST)
References: <20151130042819.10658.qmail@ary.lan> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
From: "Derek J. Balling" <>
X-Enigmail-Draft-Status: N1110
Message-ID: <>
Date: Wed, 2 Dec 2015 12:33:39 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.11; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="H3ptEENuDK3wC6BRT6BpPjIpsqBGTlKEI"
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: Wed, 02 Dec 2015 17:33:50 -0000

On 12/2/2015 12:24 PM, Dave Crocker wrote:
>> It seems to me that #1 is covered by virtue of the request existing in
>> the first place.
> Please re-read what I wrote a bit more carefully and consider the part I
> said is mostly ignored, namely the second half of #1.  If you still hold
> the view you stated, please explain how the second half has been satisfied.
"Is there clear indication that 'the community' wants to do this". OK,
how do we determine that?
"by virtue of there being folk who want spend time on wg development"? 
It seems to be case that such people exist, or we wouldn't be having
this discussion. "(and) they or other folk making noises about interest
in implementing and developing it" It seems like this whole discussion
is that of "them and other folks" making noises about implementing and
developing it.
> If there is no obvious problem with doing work in this space, then
> yeah waiting until it's done to look for specific problems makes
> sense. But that's not applicable for the current type of work, as
> dangers of the /category/ of work have already been cited. d/ 
As the proponents of the WG have noted, the "big four" webmail providers
are already to some extent doing things similar to what the
WG-proponents are considering, and the Internet hasn't collapsed in pain
from their so doing. It seems, then, that any problems are, in fact,
non-obvious, as the ones which have been raised have been shown to be
(to some extent) overblown.

I prefer to use encrypted mail. My public key fingerprint is
FD6A 6990 F035 DE9E 3713 B4F1 661B 3AD6 D82A BBD0.

You can download it at

Learn how to encrypt your email with the E-Mail Self Defense