It is not like the SMTP list is overflowing with traffic. I just looked, and ietf-smtp is averaging less than one message per month.
I would suggest sending a message to both the ehip and shutup lists saying they will be shut down and the discussion will move (start?) to the ietf-smtp list. You might also hint that people should /review/ the ietf-smtp list before suggesting we take out all diagnostics from email transport ;-).
Then, after two weeks, shut down the ehip and shutup lists.
> On Nov 26, 2015, at 8:19 AM, Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> John/John,
>
> On 26/11/2015 00:04, John C Klensin wrote:
>> --On Wednesday, November 25, 2015 22:00 +0000 John Levine
>> <johnl@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>>> These two lists were just announced in the past couple of
>>> days, and neither has any traffic yet other than the
>>> announcements.
>>>
>>> They are about more or less the same thing, ehip about hiding
>>> info in mail headers, shutup about not recording mail trace
>>> information.
>> I wasn't able to even figure that much out from the
>> announcement. I guessed that "SMTP headers" might mean
>> SMTP-provided trace header fields, but I can come up with
>> alternate theories and I got "hiding" not "not recording". I
>> did write the list managers about that, but have not yet gotten
>> a reply.
> The two mailing lists are about related, but not exactly the same work.
>
> draft-josefsson-email-received-privacy
>
> My understanding is that ehip is mostly to work on draft-wchuang-grunion-01 ("S/MIME Proxy Forwarding"). "shutup" is for charter discussions and hopefully for the subsequent WG related to personal information reduction in the Received header fields (draft-josefsson-email-received-privacy) and encryption of other sensitive header fields when using S/MIME/OpenPGP (https://modernpgp.org/memoryhole/).
>>> I have my doubts about the wisdom of both, but it seems to me
>>> that it would make sense to pick one list and close the other
>>> down since it'll be the same people arguing about the same
>>> issues on both.
>> Agreed. There is another reason as well. If the intent is to
>> hide trace and normal (nominally UA-UA) mail header fields in
>> transit, it is almost certain that the same or closely-related
>> mechanisms will need to be used, at least unless the plan is to
>> replace Internet mail's "envelope and header" model with
>> separate outer envelope, trace envelope, and header model
>> (perhaps separating part of all of the latter from message
>> content by more than a blank line) similar to the P1/P2/P3
>> abstraction in X.400-series email.
> I think this would be a perfect topic to discuss on the shutup@ mailing list. So please subscribe and let's discuss this topic there.
>> If the shut-up intent is either to not record trace fields or to
>> create and move to that more complex envelope structure, I, for
>> one, would prefer to have that discussion on the SMTP list,
>> where the right set of people are watching.
> I think notifying people on the SMTP mailing list is a good idea, but I think the chartering discussion would be better done on a separate mailing list.
>
> Best Regards,
> Alexey
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail