Doug's questions are better directed to a prospective researcher: I
am not proposing to do any of this myself.
Douglas Otis <dotis(_at_)mail-abuse(_dot_)org> wrote:
Are you suggesting that the sharing be done via delivery status?
Receivers conditionally sharing email lists of their customers with
various bulk senders would not seem to be a good practice.
I think most would desire their email addresses kept private as much as
possible. A response that says in effect, "localpart@domain doesn't
want your email", also says this is a valid email-address in active use.
Secrecy offers no benefit beyond that of a spam filter.
What specifically do you see this offering over a spam filter. Is this
advocating a standard method for providers to implement mail filters?
How would you ensure an opt-out is effective and that there is some benefit
in adopting the practice?
The technique of dropping packets also leads to more aggressive retries
as bulk senders attempt to empty their queues. At some point a
negative response is needed, but this will also leak information.
Otherwise, this will require an increased number of servers.
The recipient desires can be more effectively enforced when the outbound
MTA can be authenticated, and not just authorized. That way any abuse
can be stopped at the source where there would be real benefit and fewer
John Leslie <john(_at_)jlc(_dot_)net>
Asrg mailing list