This is a clear list of arguments against RMX. To move this conversation
forward in a meaningful way, let's do a few things:
Vernon, can you post Vixie's suggestions that you referring to so that
everyone is aware of them. Can you also explain in more detail the
difference between those and RMX to show why you say that it is simpler.
Hadmut and/or Mike, please read the other links that Vernon provided "
http://www.google.com/search?q=match+sender+domain+hotmail and
http://www.monkeys.com/anti-spam/filtering/additions.html"; and provide a
comparison between those and RMX?
Paul
No, I don't approve of RMX. I believe
- it is redundant and unnecessary because existing
mechanisms achieve
can stop mail from free providers that does not come from each
provider's MTAs.
- there are simpler, already largely deployed ways to do exactly
what RMX does without a new RR, including Paul Vixie's
suggestions.
- the new RMX RR will never be seriously considered in the DNS WG.
- if by some fluke that happens it will never pass Last
Call in a DNS WRK.
- if everyone is asleep there, it won't pass IESG review or
main list
Last Call.
- if it does get standardized, it will not be widely
implemented in MTAs.
- it will not be installed by the organizations you need to install
it, including Hotmail, AOL, and Microsoft, because they will not
change their business models.
I'm beginning to get the impression that RMX proponents are
egregiously unaware of how SMTP works and is commonly used.
Contrary to statements from RMX propoents, current standards
and practices support rejecting mail from a free provider
that does not come from the free provider's MTAs. Many MTAs
have been doing exactly that for years. For example, see the
pages found by
http://www.google.com/search?q=match+sender+domain+hotmail
including http://www.monkeys.com/anti-spam/filtering/additions.html
You're expending an awful lot of energy trying to break down the
process but
you are an advocate of something much more anti-standards
and intrusive.
Using existing standards is less "anti-standards" and less
intrusive than demanding other people do things including
change their business models and demanding changes to
standards such as DNS. The current standards and practices
already support rejecting free provider mail that does not
come from the free provider's MTAs. (I'm repeating myself
because repetitions in previous messages were apparently unclear.)
I think resisting standards changes that are based on willful
ignorance of existing standards and current practices is
required to keep the IETF process from breaking down completely.
Instead of blocking the spammers from using those domains you block
everyone.
As I've said many times over the years including this list, I
think free providers are parasites on the Internet because of
how they handle network abuse. I do not expect you or other
ASRG contributors to share this extreme view and I certainly
do not expec the free providers to change. I do not block
all users using those domains, but only almost all. My free
provider blacklist has a handful of whitelist holes.
...I think demanding that free providers
change to fit my model of how they should run their businesses to
suit my convenience would be wrong.
Then why are you doing it? Why are you saying "you can't have free
e-mail or
I won't accept your messages"? You are absolutely telling
them how to run
their business if they want to send you mail.
Yes, but only if they want to send me mail. Contrary to you
model, they are free to send each other mail that complies
with their providers' terms and conditions. I think that
even spam is just fine, provided it stays on the spam
friendly side of the net and away from me.
with postfix (which you seem to use).
I only use pieces of it. I'm working on an SMTP proxy with
finer-grained
scriptable rules and logging to a database.
So why haven't you long since implemented the standard checks
to prevent what you call "spoofed" free provider mail?
Vernon Schryver vjs(_at_)rhyolite(_dot_)com
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg