Re: [ietf-smtp] [Shutup] Proposed Charter for the "SMTP Headers Unhealth

Tuesday, Dec 1, 2015 7:27 AM Arnt Gulbrandsen wrote:
> > Sure, but in this case wouldn't deferring to the end systems> argue in favor 
> > of allowing end systems to make the decision as> to whether their private 
> > information should be exposed?
> As I see it, that's not the question here. The question is: Should there be 
> an RFC that can be used/misused to apply pressure regarding trace fields etc?
Yes, I agree that this is what we are discussing.   I think it's pretty clear 
that for Received header fields that refer to the IP address of the end-user, 
the answer is "yes, there should be such an RFC."   I haven't heard anyone 
seriously propose that this is not true, although I'd be interested to hear 
such an argument!


--
Sent from Whiteout Mail - https://whiteout.io

My PGP key: https://keys.whiteout.io/mellon(_at_)fugue(_dot_)com

pgpRkDqfOET2G.pgp
Description: PGP signature

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