Vernon Schryver <vjs(_at_)calcite(_dot_)rhyolite(_dot_)com> wrote:
From: John Leslie <john(_at_)jlc(_dot_)net>
But I, at least, am thinking in terms of an implementation where we
notify the SMTP-sending-server during the SMTP session, with a message
including a URL for more information. IMHO, this would tend to converge
to a situation where end-users understood the issue -- and learned to
route around it. ;^)
Where is the business of the main IETF mailing list in that suggestion?
That statement -- outlining my personal thinking -- was intended to
solicit consensus on Iljitsch's principle from Dave Crocker and/or
those who think like him. (I know most people have given up on ever
finding consensus from Dave, but I'm a slow learner...)
It is already a de facto standard.
(Most people, when they say "de facto standard", mean something already
done by a strong majority. But, of course, that's not what the words
mean, so I won't argue your usage.)
I'm frankly not concerned whether that practice is endorsed as a
Many and probably most well run SMTP servers include an appropriate
message in their 5yz rejection messages when spam detection is the
issue. Today an appropriate message is often a URL.
Agreed. Enough people are doing it that the idea will surely spread.
Even the dinosaurs (cable companies and incumbent phone companies) will
catch on eventually.
There are details that could be officially standardized such as formats
that MUAs could more easily recognize and present to end users. The
bounces generated by the near-end MTA after a failed SMTP session are
incomprehensible to many people. Some MTAs (e.g. Hotmail's when I last
checked) include random text in their session transcripts apparently
drawn from random SMTP sessions during that last several hours.
All items which I'd be happy to see discussed in MARID.
However, this sort of standardization seems more appropriate for some
SMTP WG or the ASRG than here.
There is no MARID mailing-list yet, so we're stuck here for a few
more days. (ASRG is not an IETF group.) In the meantime, I'm trying to
solicit consensus -- no matter how "rough" -- on principles of spam
abatement, not details of its implementation.
John Leslie <john(_at_)jlc(_dot_)net>