On Fri, Mar 28, 2003 at 07:00:09AM -0500, Alan DeKok wrote:
None of these solutions are proposed in isolation. Can we please
STOP assuming that any solution will be the ONLY one implemented, and
attacking it based it's imperfections when used in isolation?
The more different solutions you will need to work together "to make it
work" the lower are the chances any of these will be adopted, because
the migration pathes will be too complicated or even not working at all.
\Maex
I don't think this is necessarily the case. In fact, I don't personally
believe that there is a single one solution that we can apply that will
solve the entire problem. For instance, there are things you can do at
SMTP connection time (reverse DNS validation, sender/recipient checks, and
others that have been mentioned here). These types of checks simply are
not practical after receipt. On the other hand, detailed header analysis,
content analysis and filtering and such for most systems is not practical to
perform during the SMTP session for performance reasons.
I believe we have a farily complex problem here to solve. As with most
such systems, breaking it down into smaller, more managible components, can
often lead to a quicker and better solutions. And there is nothing to say
that further down the road many of these smaller solutions can't be combined
once the problems and their resolution are better understood.
Best Regards,
-- Tim
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg