On 01/12/15 19:50, Christian Huitema wrote: > On Tuesday, December 1, 2015 11:24 AM, Martijn Grooten wrote: >> >> 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. >> > > I am also concerned with automated mass surveillance, including traffic > analysis. The basic traffic analysis produces "5-tupple" logs. Since a lot > of the Internet usage is now mobile, there is no direct mapping between IP > addresses and user identities. To move from traffic analysis to > surveillance, the analyzers need to restore that mapping. There are multiple > ways to do that, as explained in RFC 7624, and email headers are one of > them. > > Clearly, there are also other sources of correlation between IP address and > identity. Various IETF working groups are busy closing these other sources > as well: MAC Address randomization to suppress direct mapping of identities > to roaming devices; DHCP anonymity profile to remove the leakage of metadata > in DNS packets; or, HTTPS to prevent observation of HTTP cookies. To break > the correlation between IP address and identity, we need to also close the > leakage in the SMTP traces. > > Everybody understands that there is a tension there between privacy and > fighting spam. I get the use case of the virus-infected home PC that > originates spam through the permissive SMTP relay of some local ISP. But > then many mail providers feel the need to provide privacy to their users, > which drives them to deploy their own formatting of the "received" field. We > do have a tension there, and that tension is precisely why we want to study > the alternatives and come up with a proposed recommendation.
+1 to all the above. > Hence the WG > charter. Well... the charter text proposed (perhaps combined with the draft posted before) does seem to have caused a bit of an allergic reaction from many mail folks;-) I suspect those of us who would like to see work done to improve the privacy properties of mail may need to understand that reaction some more before trying to move stuff ahead. Cheers, S. _______________________________________________ Shutup mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/shutup
