Clearly I'm confused and beg forgivness due to ignorance related to the
following questions:
Isn't CRI about getting various CR systems to interoperate?
If something make sense for CR, how can it not make sense for CRI?
The problem I have with the original sender's
email address is that I now have to inspect EVERY email
821,822,and MIME to look for CRI headers.
This statement confuses me even further. If CRI systems don't use the
original sender's email address, they DEFINITELY have to inspect every
email for CRI headers because they don't know if a given email is a
challenge or not.
I submit to you that keeping the original sender's email address
SIGNIFICANTLY reduces overhead, because:
1. Challenge transmissions are ALWAYS a reactive step, (CRI draft, 2b)
2. This implies that the sender has already sent an email (CRI draft,
2a)
3. And if we ASSUME that the original sender has automatically
whitelisted the recipient email address (a safe assumption)
4. Then a CRI system only needs to inspect email whose MAIL-FROM is
present on the whitelist, otherwise the CRI needs to inspect everything.
Please help me out of this black hole of cluelessness.
I would recommend that we either strike the statement or
leave as is. The problem I have with the original sender's
email address is that I now have to inspect EVERY email
821,822,and MIME to look for CRI headers. That sucks.
For CR, your statement makes sense...for CRI...it does not.
"For CRI systems that issue challenge messages, it is also
recommended
that each CRI system use the original sender's email address for
issuing
challenges to reduce unecessary overhead."
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg