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

Hector Santos <> Thu, 10 December 2015 18:06 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id AB56D1ABD3A for <>; Thu, 10 Dec 2015 10:06:26 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -101.138
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.138 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_COM=0.553, HOST_MISMATCH_NET=0.311, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] autolearn=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ZWNAdWnkTTrE for <>; Thu, 10 Dec 2015 10:06:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id F379D1A92AD for <>; Thu, 10 Dec 2015 10:06:16 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1;; s=tms1; a=rsa-sha1; c=simple/relaxed; l=2005; t=1449770767;; atpsh=sha1; h=Received:Received:Received:Received:Message-ID:Date:From: Organization:To:Subject:List-ID; bh=D5nVuMHkGEvZWDSYSsHTtDs9UzM=; b=leJ6r6oVxilj0/ijp9UEeLPDaaNGAk79UzrISpyooy3jW9JtaQpj3pHFdO7+sF qwLwHxfn5CFjaDd5aNmTuO5PVOCTRkrf8hboFC/1K1ZBh15aMjhC4q4nI+ZuQLhK OaUfJR74DoAx6Ef1IsYOCpF8hx2uIUft5GtrEbgU5T2v0=
Received: by (Wildcat! SMTP Router v7.0.454.4b1) for; Thu, 10 Dec 2015 13:06:07 -0500
Authentication-Results:; dkim=pass header.s=tms1; adsp=pass policy=all; dmarc=pass policy=none (atps signer);
Received: from ( []) by (Wildcat! SMTP v7.0.454.4b1) with ESMTP id 1658954335.3.3996; Thu, 10 Dec 2015 13:06:06 -0500
DKIM-Signature: v=1;; s=tms1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/relaxed; l=2005; t=1449770643; h=Received:Received: Message-ID:Date:From:Organization:To:Subject:List-ID; bh=VGK47aT VXFZiEuDmxhuohz8OxnkB3ODJV8g5LbFWUkY=; b=OyfZZ2KSHWOWLtu+3lld/jy PXOuMpCs803k9UcTb22tc1znJROoeIp1HC/SQMkwxYoqg3cQFFgnH+JV0OCSOZWd pQFunYodvlSnInQEGENoc+MGcsEedK6KTZy2ddsAMfdGiMOBa4yPWY5kxDh3Gg+v rEHTewJ7J4pv5bIP81lY=
Received: by (Wildcat! SMTP Router v7.0.454.4) for; Thu, 10 Dec 2015 13:04:03 -0500
Received: from [] ([]) by (Wildcat! SMTP v7.0.454.4) with ESMTP id 597809055.9.102176; Thu, 10 Dec 2015 13:04:02 -0500
Message-ID: <>
Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2015 13:05:59 -0500
From: Hector Santos <>
Organization: Santronics Software, Inc.
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.8.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Richard Clayton <>, Martijn Grooten <>
References: <> <20151210151541.68326.qmail@ary.lan> <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
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 18:06:26 -0000

On 12/10/2015 12:42 PM, Richard Clayton wrote:
> Hash: SHA1
> In message <>et>, Martijn Grooten
> <> writes
>>> for many individuals there is only a short-term linkage between
>>> themselves and the IP address (think dialup, DHCP systems for broadband
>>> and carrier grade NAT solutions for mobile) so you can seldom use it for
>>> long-term tracking of activity ("what else has this person done")
>> I have been told that in the case of a home ISP, the linkage lasts long
>> enough that if you send me a job application email from that a
>> visit to our website three days ago from was quite likely made
>>from the same house.
> My home cable connection has had the same IP for 15 months... but I
> would expect to get a different IP if I powered the cable modem down for
> more than a few minutes.

I will be surprise if it did.  For my home system, my "dynamic" IP has 
not changed unless the box itself was replaced by my ISP (AT&T).  That 
has happened twice (box replaced) over the last 8-10 years and only 
then did the IP change.  Over those years, there has been times where 
the boxes were powered off for lengthy periods and to my surprise, and 
unlike the earlier days, there was never a new IP assigned.

> There are no general rules here and almost every possible case is common

I personally think the ISP has a contract and business deals with the 
advertising market to make sure to keep dynamic IP boxes "static" for 
as long as possible.   I'm sure they have deals with the "Facebooks" 
and "Yahoos" of the world.

In any case, I am going to pencil in an new SMTP option in our SMTP 
server product:

    [X] Add Receiver Trace Line
        (o) Show Client IP
        (_) Mask Client IP

I think it is important enough because of the improved (and society 
acceptable) BI (business intelligence) software in the market today.