2. a variety of actions: e.g. bounce, delay, discard, deliver,
and/or limit the kinds of messages I will accept
I only need to (accept | deny) really - the disposition of the
offending message is an issue of configuring the consent seeking
entity - what it does when a "deny" is obtained
I think the middle ground (e.g. accept but only after a delay,
accept with small probability, else tempfail, accept only short messages
and/or only with a limited set of contents) is very important -
if nothing else, during a transition phase. If we have a situation
where only X% of the ISPs support mechanisms to allow standardized
sender-identification and query of senders to see if they're spammers,
we need a way to handle mail that comes from the other 100-X%
which isn't as drastic as bouncing/discarding but still penalizes them.
3. filtering things that aren't of interest to me, whether or not
they
meet anyone else's criteria for "spam". (like the annoying
message from djb insisting that everyone should adopt his method
of composing replies)
I can have my MUA (consulting a local consent) filter against local
classifications.. as well as more widely scoped ones.
indeed. what you advertise to the world that you're willing to have
filtered on your behalf and what you filter locally can be different.
btw, the sender-id tag is a tag that would be supplied by the sender
I have problems with identifying senders (as do others
- there's a lot on the list about this)
which is why my sender-id doesn't actually identify senders.
(I suppose I need a better name - at one time I was using
originator-info, but that's kind of long.)
So I'm concentrating on the intended *recipient*
well, of course the recipient specifies the filtering criteria.
-in my example
there are criteria for delivery that are meant to pre-empt later
criteria for pessimal handling - e.g. if you're on my whitelist I
want the message delivered even if your ISP is untrustworthy. it
would not be good to have some MTA ignore the whitelist and apply
the later criteria.)
This just needs "accept" to have higher priority than "deny" - I
think?
actually, no. if an MTA doesn't understand how to implement the
accept criteria, it must also ignore any of the following deny
criteria. either that or we need to specify the criteria in such
a way that they're independent of one another, with no ordering.
so instead of saying
if (x) accept
if (y) deny
say
if (!x && y) deny
Keith
--
"Of course the people don't want war. But ... it is always a simple
matter to drag the people along. All you have to do is tell them they
are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism
and exposing the country to danger... It works the same way in any
country."
- Hermann Goering, 1947.
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg