Wouldn't a standard way of communicating consent between the MUA and MTA
help?
I'm not convinced that we need anything beyond what we already have. (And
non-compliant points in the path are STILL going to need to map any
"extended
result codes" to one of the current basic set of results anyhow).
Let's put it like this:
Would it be a "good thing" to reject unwanted mail as near the sender as
possible?
yes / no
Will it be impossible (in most cases) for a recipient to directly configure
an upstream MTA
yes / no
Will MUA / MTA be from a diverse set of vendors
yes / no
If you answered mainly "yes" then you'll likely need a standards based
consent /policy expression do-dad.
If you answered mainly "no" then you'll need to think about the problem
more.
The "end-to-end consent" systems are particular cases of the general
"consent in the MTS" question. If you don't believe that end-to-end consent
is workable or required (although the consent-token / proof-of-work / CR
crew will disagree with you) - you're still left with the general question.
--
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg