From: asrg-admin(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org [mailto:asrg-admin(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org]
On
Behalf Of Jon Kyme
Sent: July 10, 2003 06:18
To: ASRG
Subject: Re: [Asrg] 3. Requirements - Non Spam must go through
Am I correct in assuming that the overall opinion of the
group seems to be that this statement cannot be part of the
requirements?
I think "must ensure" sets the bar way too high. I think that
either the sender, intended recipient or (possibly) both, must
be able to determine that a message wasn't delivered because
of some anti-spam thingy.
I agree with this. I would be careful about the wording though,
as the requirement "must be able to determine" may be met by
message tracking systems which the sender must manually invoke.
When someone sends an e-mail, until they hear otherwise they
should assume that it has reached its recipient in a timely and
readily readable manner. That means that it hasn't ended up in
a rarely read spam-trap and has not been silently dropped.
This can be achieved either by (1) having the receiving agent
issue a notification that the messages has been refused, or (2)
by having one of the MTAs in the chain reject the message.
(2) is better because there is the risk that (1) may also be
rejected or classified as spam, and because (1) results in
considerable effort on the part of the receiver. (1) should,
however, be a DSN without return path to prevent loops. An
attempt to notify sender is probably sufficient.
I still believe that in order to maintain the end-to-end nature
of SMTP the solution "must ensure" that the message is either
delivered (to all the recipients' agents) or rejected (resulting
in sender notification, subject to upstream MTA fulfilling its
responsibilities).
--
Elric Pedder
Mailtraq Development (www.mailtraq.com)
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg