On Mon, 5 May 2003, Vernon Schryver wrote:
What accountability is lacking but would be provided by RMX for the
unsolicited bulk email from Verisign, American Express, Roving Software,
Topica, and the rest of the Fortune 50,000 that would be our topic if
the "Bill Zhangs" were not so productive? The Fortune 50,000 send
with unforged headers that point directly at themselves.
I think what is left unstated in this dispute is that the RMX proponents
would like to discriminate among senders at a finer level than the IP
address of the connecting host. They want to accept legitimate mail from
spam-friendly connection IPs, and reject other mail. This would reduce the
need for ISPs to "censor" their customer's incoming/outgoing mail, and the
need for customers to find an ISP with a mail policy they can live with.
One way to imagine this happening, is if the receiving sites kept records
by sender of the spam status of messages. If a.example.com had sent
legitimate mail in the past, and b.example.com had sent spam, then
marginally spammy looking mail from a.example.com could be accepted, even
though the connecting machine was "dirty" from b.example.com. Hopefully
this would allow a lower type-2 error rate. This is unreliable now,
because MAIL FROM addresses are unreliable.
However, if the RMX proposal were successfull, then sending sites could
stop suppressing spam, knowing that receiving sites won't hold it against
them, provided the MAIL FROM: addresses in spam messages don't overlap
with legitimate mail. I do not regard that as a desirable state of
affairs. While the receiving site has reduced its type-2 error rate, it
has removed the only significant incentive sending sites have to
supervise their mail, meaning even more spam for everyone else.
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg