ietf-smtp
[Top] [All Lists]

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

2015-11-29 09:40:48


--On Sunday, November 29, 2015 11:16 AM +0100 Arnt Gulbrandsen
<arnt(_at_)gulbrandsen(_dot_)priv(_dot_)no> wrote:

It could be killed by establishing minimum standards for
encryption, e.g. no crypto RFC without support for perfect
forward secrecy.

But the enthusiastic support for "opportunistic encryption",
which sometimes seems to translate as "even poor encryption is
more protective of privacy than none", probably kills off any
such minimum standards.

That said, this proposal sounds as if it will sink on its own.
The very point of it is to hide intimation from a set of
parties that includes the spam filter.


One could hope that issue, together with 

        "The working group will prioritize privacy-preserving
        Email header field minimization techniques that are
        interoperable with existing e-mail deployments and that
        avoid unnecessary degradation of mail service and user
        experience."

(from the draft charter) would kill it, but I note that even
that charter statement doesn't say "proposals that would degrade
mail service or not interoperate with existing deployments are
showstoppers".

Considering that
problem and the abysmal adoption of PGP-based tools, I see no
future for this.

See above.  It does not appear to me to assume or need PGP-based
(or S/MIME, etc.-based) tools.   Given the draft charter says
"liaise with DMARC..." and the enthusiasm around opportunistic
encryption with DANE-based keys, "no future" doesn't imply "no
standard and pressure to adopt it".

    john

_______________________________________________
ietf-smtp mailing list
ietf-smtp(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-smtp

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>