I wrote:
After all the difference between sending a message and having it bounced,
and asking "will you accept x" and being told "no" is largely one of
bandwidth, and not a qualitative difference in the information
gained by the
experience.
What I expect to happen is that this "no" will be contained within a rule
that the sender can apply generally for this recipient (e.g. not this
sender, not this Mime type, not content containing "badword" or whatever),
and that it would also have a "time to live" (or "time to love" as I just
mistyped!) thereby empowering the sender to make assumptions about other
matching messages, and reduce unproductive bandwidth use.
Perhaps simply attempting to send a message and if it is rejected the
rejection contains the rule which caused the rejection, and it's TTL, and
allow the sender to apply it themselves?
Before everyone flames me, I *do* get the fact that this could be used to
quickly build up a profile of what is allowable, and so spammers could
tailor mail to make it allowable, but lets see if we can work this problem
out before we dismiss it completely.
Times to live would also raise some questions, such as how would people
react if a bad rule had a big TTL and their honest mail was destroyed for
hours before the TTL expired.
d.
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg