[Top] [All Lists]

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

2015-12-04 13:37:46
Friday, Dec 4, 2015 11:54 AM Dave Crocker wrote:
Hence, queries of the 'show your work' type move into the realm of
etended tutorial to non-experts, rather than helping to the vetting of
foundational issues for creating a working group.

I share your discomfort.   However, my concern with the approach of simply 
refusing to answer questions on the grounds you state is twofold: first, it 
excludes any participation by stakeholders other than anti-spam developers, and 
there are other stakeholders.   Second, it preserves the status quo, which is 
clearly broken.   By which I do not mean that you all are not doing good work: 
what I mean is that because you are so effective at minimizing spam, there is 
no incentive to actually clean up many of the messes you are working around at 
the moment.

From my perspective, quite a bit of useful information has already been shared 
as a result of this discussion, and it would be nice if that information were 
collected somewhere.   I think that there's more work to be done.   It may be 
bothersome to folks who don't feel that these questions need to be answered, 
but I don't think it's realistic to think that if you just protest loudly 
enough, they will stop getting asked, or that the practice of header redaction 
will not become more widespread.

Sent from Whiteout Mail -

My PGP key:

Attachment: pgpcPatnFZXuA.pgp
Description: PGP signature

ietf-smtp mailing list
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>