At 05:53 PM 6/26/2003 -1000, Peter Kay wrote:
I think you've got the beginning of a consent-based framework. I like
it. What I'm getting out of this is:
A. there exists a plug-in infrastructure that can run on MUA or MTA
(ISP).
Plug-in is not the correct word here, we are seeking to create a general
framework with details left for specific implementations.
B. each plug-in provides for some type of policy definition, related to
the plugins purpose. This can range from filtering to CR to all the
other methods mentioned below.
Each implementation/
C. each plug-in can be configured by a hierarchy. Starting w/ the ISP
(for instance), then perhaps a domain-level admin (for corporate
applications0 and then the end-user. We can decide on varying levels of
defaults or override capability so that for example if an ISP whitelists
a source, the end-user may have the option to blacklist it.
Are you suggesting that the various implementations should be able to
interoperate? This can be done by defining interoperability protocols like
the CRI protocol for C/R systems.
To me, this reinforces what I've seen over the past few months on this
group:
1. no one can agree what spam is. So at the end of the day, the user has
to have the power to decide. This is in line w/ the charter.
Agreed
2. no one technological approach "religion" (i.e. filtering, C/R, etc)
is adequate to deal with the general problem of "unwanted email".
Agreed.
3. spammers will change their methods as time goes on, so the
architecture must allow for that.
Agreed
In addition, a consent-based framework allows for multiple vendors to
participate. If we can create some sort of "email bus" I think it has a
lot of potential.
An email bus? Can you explain this?
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Yakov Shafranovich [mailto:research(_at_)solidmatrix(_dot_)com]
> Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2003 11:23 AM
> To: asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
> Subject: [Asrg] Consent Proposal
>
>
> I would like to provide a generic proposal for consent-based
> system as per
> charter:
>
> 1. Users and/or ISP define rules and filters to filter
> incoming email.
> Rules/filters are decided by end users and ISPs, and are not
> mandated.
> Every user/ISP can define its own policies ranging from
> banning all email
> not digitally signed to blocking HTML.
> 2. For each email user, the MUA or the ISP maintains a
> whitelist of trusted
> senders, blacklist of blocked senders and a graylist of
> unknown senders.
> Whitelisted senders go the inbox, graylisted senders go to
> the bulk folder,
> and blacklisted senders are either in the spam folder or
> erased. 3. Whitelists are not only a list of email addresses
> of trusted senders,
> but to avoid sender spoofing also have additional features
> such as digital
> signatures, certificates, passwords, tokens, etc.
> 4. Additional automatic whitelist rules are defined as such
> email from
> trusted senders (e.g. Habeas) is automatically goes to the
> inbox unless
> blacklisted, etc. C/R systems are also integrated and upon
> receiving a
> positive response automatically whitelist the sender.
> 5. Additional automatic blacklist rules are defined such as
> email coming
> from known open relays is blocked.
> 6. Whitelists, graylists and blacklists are stored hashed or
> encrypted to
> protect privacy.
>
> Any thoughts?
>
> Yakov
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg