On Tue, Dec 01, 2015 at 01:21:51PM -0500, Chris Lewis wrote: > "Standardized" or not, Received lines provide a rich detail of fodder > for filtering, whether or not the filter manages to understand what > the received line is trying to say about where the email allegedly > came from or how it got there. The IP could just as easily be a > non-reversible encrypted blob unique to the sending user that only the > provider understands, but the receiver can filter on. > > I say "allegedly", because the actual source (personal attribution) of > the email is generally irrelevant to filtering. Our primary goal is > stopping the trash, a secondary goal is helping the infectee fix their > problem, but if the provider wants to interfere with the latter, well, > we can live with it.
I think this is a very good point. A recommendation to substitute a "non-reversible encrypted blob" for the sender's IP address seems to me a good balance between privacy and security. I agree that if keeping your geolocation is a matter of life and death, you shouldn't use email, but for me that is not a reason for the IP address to be visible for anyone who can read the email. I think privacy matters, even when it's not about life and death. Martijn.
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ Shutup mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/shutup
