Vernon Schryver <vjs(_at_)calcite(_dot_)rhyolite(_dot_)com> wrote:
- For RMX bits to be useful dialup users, their mail provider must
list their home IP addresses.
Nonsense. I have stated explicitely many times that I expect
users at a domain to authenticate to a well-known MTA for that domain,
and to use that MTA for sending mail.
In that situation, a proposal which "qualifies" the originating MTA
will deal with the public MTA for that domain, not the umpteen IP's in
the network for that domain.
I find it curious that your objection to a proposal is based on
using it a situation where it's expensive and unhelpful, when
equivalent, but cheaper alternatives exist. Your agenda appears to be
to find any crumb, no matter how contrived, which you can then use to
devalue a proposal.
Thus, the home domain must list all IP addresses of the dialup
ISP as legitimate senders, because the user might next get any
address owned by the dialup ISP. For dialup ISPs with millions
of current and prospective customers (e.g. RBOCs and cable modem
providers), that would amount to authorizing a lot of spammers.
In that case, what information would the RMX bits convey?
In a nonsense situation you invent, of course the propose is
useless. But you'll have to take the ownership for the nonsense
situation, as I've never had anything to do with it.
- how big a problem is forgery of your domain name? How many such
messages do you see daily?
Last time I checked years ago, it was a fair number a week. I got
tired of wasting my time dealing with idiots who didn't understand
forgeries, and bit-bucketed all of those messages. If I care enough
to check today, I'm sure the number of forgeries would be large.
Have you read Dave Crocker's ID?
Yes. I read it again yesterday, to be sure I hadn't missed
anything. It's a good start, but it's significantly more vague than
messages on this list. Until such time as it signficantly restricts
proposed solutions, I'm left dealing with more descriptive messages on
this list.
Indeed. So why aren't you out applying tape and twine instead of
railing at people who you say are "preventing" your use of RMX?
Since I've never said that, I have no clue as to what you're talking
about, or what your problem is.
My concern has been people who oppose proposals, where that
opposition consists mainly of comments like "that won't work", or "we
don't want to change that", or inventing nonsense situations, or
ridiculous ad hominems.
You are ducking the question. While PGP and S/MIME were created to
solve different problems, they certainly do permit identifying the
originator of email. If identifying the originator of email is
effective against spam, what's wrong with PGP and S/MIME for serving
that purpose?
Cost. DNS lookups are cheaper than accepting a full SMTP
transaction, and then doing crypto on the data received. Is it really
that hard for you to figure that out?
In your preceding message you said that Yahoo was going to leap on
the RMX bandwagon. Are you now saying that Yahoo will leap on a
bandwagon that forces them to update their business model? What
business model do you foresee Yahoo using?
One that works?
One that reduces their costs?
Would Yahoo users be required to use Yahoo SMTP clients to send
mail?
If Yahoo desires it, I don't see why not.
If so, how will Yahoo users get past port 25 blocking on other
ISPs?
That's really up to Yahoo, the ISP, and their customers, isn't it?
Alan DeKok.
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg