Vernon Schryver <vjs(_at_)calcite(_dot_)rhyolite(_dot_)com> wrote:
Perhaps my use of "outlaw" was a bad choice. I meant "practically
prohibit" instead of anything about laws. Isn't the intent of the
RMX proposal to practically prohibit using a domain name other that
of the reverse DNS name or a few other special cases?
No.
It's intent is that MTA recipients can choose to "qualify"
(i.e. filter or prohibit) mail from certain IP's, when that mail
appears to be forged. Your objections to RMX appear to be based on a
refusal to change your network behaviour, and on your insistence that
everyone else must accept that behaviour.
Even with RMX, you are perfectly free to ignore it's
recommendations. What's got you upset, I believe, is the thought of
others discarding your messages which are not compliant to a standard
you don't support. My response is "c'est la vie."
Your use of "forge" is clearly a bad choice. "Forgery" is about
fraud.
So how I tell the difference between a spam sent from a dial-up,
which is allegedly from you, and a non-spam message sent by you from a
neighbouring dial-up?
In your world, I don't. (Barring PGP, S/MIME, etc.) So my incentive
is to delete all such apparent forgeries as unverifiable.
In practice, I think it would be impossible for Hotmail to provide
SMTP-AUTH. First is that the problems of managing the authenticating
shared secrets for millions of users with an incredibly high "churn"
rate would be killers.
That's really for Hotmail to determine, isn't it?
Second, many Hotmail users could not use SMTP-AUTH because SMTP-AUTH
uses port 25 which is more commonly filtered for users likely to
pick a free provider than others.
So ASRG needs a BCP document, saying filtering port 25 is stupid,
and unhelpful. Will you put your support behing such a document?
Alan DeKok.
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg