There is no one overall solution that will magically solve all of our spam
problems. We must seek a combination of several solutions which can
significantly reduce the overall volume of spam. Unfortunately, unlike what
most of us wish spammers are not going away so fast. Neither will any
servers on the Internet magically start doing SMTP authentication - changes
can take a lot of time. We need to seek a combination of various changes to
protocols, policy suggestions and other solutions in order to gradually
reduce the problem.
In that same vein, I would like to make a small suggestion which can help
as part of an overall solution. If we utilize some form of a RMX/rDNS
system, there is still an issue of dealing with the email arriving from
non-RMX/non-rDNS sites especially during the transition process.
Blacklisting or white listing is not a valid option since that would block
legitimate mail. I would like to suggest something that I remember seeing
either here or elsewhere on the Net: assigning priority to each message.
Messages with different priority levels can be routed accordingly, possible
spam can be delayed by a significant number of hours or days during which
the spammer's website and email accounts will be probably terminated by
their ISP. Legitimate email will still get through, but the inherent
"slowness" will force the senders to complain to their ISP to switch over
to a RMX or rDNS system.
There are already two headers mentioned in RFC 2076, section 3.9:
"Priority:" and "Precedence:" According to RFC 2076 these headers "can
influence general usage transmission speed and delivery". However,
according to the same RFC the "Priority" header is "not for general usage"
and the "Precedence" header is "non-standard, controversial, discouraged".
Perhaps as part of an overall change in policy and protocols towards a
spam-free environment we should formalize one of these two headers or
define a new header, as part of the SMTP protocol and ALSO define format
procedures as to how the difference "priority" or "precedence" levels
should be dealt with by MTAs. Sendmail, which is the most popular MTA in
use already deals with the "precedence" header as can been seen in the
"Installation and Operation Guide for Sendmail 8.12", section #2.9.3
(http://www.sendmail.org/~ca/email/doc8.12/op-sh-2.html#sh-2.9.3):
"Precedence
The Precedence: header can be used as a crude control of message priority.
It tweaks the sort order in the queue and can be configured to change the
message timeout values. The precedence of a message also controls how
delivery status notifications (DSNs) are processed for that message. "
I am sure that if this header is formalized or a new header is defined, AND
formal guidelines are established for routing such mail, SendMail and other
MTAs can be prevailed upon to support it. I am not suggesting an overall
solution, just adding another piece of the puzzle.
I would like to hear any comments on this,
Yakov
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yakov Shafranovich / <research(_at_)solidmatrix(_dot_)com>
SolidMatrix Research, a division of SolidMatrix Technologies, Inc.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"One who watches the wind will never sow, and one who keeps his eyes on
the clouds will never reap" (Ecclesiastes 11:4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg