On Monday, May 05, 2003 9:02 PM, Daniel Feenberg
[SMTP:feenberg(_at_)nber(_dot_)org]
wrote:
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.
I don't follow that premise. How does RMX lead to a '[desire] to accept mail
from spam-friendly connection IPs, and reject other mail'? How would the
introduction of RMX affect my (recipient MTA) policy formulation in your
example?
-e
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg