From: asrg-admin(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org [mailto:asrg-admin(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org]
On
Behalf Of Yakov Shafranovich
Sent: July 7, 2003 19:59
To: Elric Pedder; asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Subject: RE: [Asrg] 3. Requirements - Non Spam must go through
At 07:23 PM 7/7/2003 -0400, Elric Pedder wrote:
[snip]
I don't believe you can stop false positives -- if only because
people will have widely varying opinions on what SPAM (to them)
is. It is, however, very dangerous to allow false positives
because if anything the perceived "reliability" of the Internet
becomes compromised.
I would recommend
"Any measure for stopping spam must ensure that all messages
either reach the intended recipient, or are returned to the
sender, or the sender notified."
How would this fit within the consent model? If a RECEIVER
revokes consent for a specific sender, then messages from that
SENDER cannot be delivered?
Within the consent model, notifications would be sent when
RECEIVER revokes consent or when SENDER does not have consent.
It is important in the revocation case because it is still possible
that consent was accidentally revoked by the RECEIVER.
Note that the "notification" does not have to be, necessarily,
sent by the consent decision-making system. Answering 5xx after
receipt of the message leaves the responsibility for notifications
with the sending MTA, or the client MUA. RFC2821 provides 10
minutes for analysis of the message, which should be plenty of
time to assess whether or not consent is granted (including
analysis of the message content and DBL checks).
Independent (post delivery) notifications are a last resort, but
are still far better than simply dropping a message.
--
Elric Pedder
Mailtraq Development (www.mailtraq.com)
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg