ietf-asrg
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - transparent authentication scheme and cost-shifting

2003-10-10 13:04:15
At 12:08 PM -0500 2003/10/10, Trusted Mailer Support wrote:

                                                          At its core,
 the system essentially blocks all "bulk" email unless the bulk sender
 has the system's x-header authentication scheme contained within the
 email header.

        It will not be an Internet standard for mail with an "X-" header.  
Period.

If you truly want to target an Internet standard, you're going to have to target a real header. You could use an "X-" header during transition, but you'd have to have a strong transition plan for how you can guarantee that would be replaced with the real operational header.


If you're making a basic error like this at this stage, then one of the first things I'd suggest is that you re-read all of the relevant RFCs, starting with 2821 and 2822.

Quote me chapter and verse from the relevant RFCs, from memory. I know people who can do it. You need to be one of those people.

                The system has several layers of anti-spoofing steps
 it runs through before accepting the email message (done in a way that
 will not jam servers and cause deliver delays).

As the former Sr. Internet Mail Administrator for AOL, consultant on a number of very large-scale e-mail projects, author of an invited talk on building large-scale mail systems (presented at LISA 2000), and technical reviewer of a couple of related books, I would be very interested to hear more about how this system can be made scalable.

 Anyway, that's a taste.  Send me an email if you'd like to learn more
 about the project.

Therein lies the problem. If you really would "...like to contribute our work to the public good in hopes that the industry will adopt at least some of these concepts", then that discussion would have to take place in a group like ASRG, and in a place like this mailing list.

Plenty of people have come to me with a variety of anti-spam projects which have required NDA. I haven't signed one yet.


I'm going to be a tough nut to crack. I'm sure I'm not the only one. You're going to have to convince people like me if you want to get very far with such a proposal.

--
Brad Knowles, <brad(_dot_)knowles(_at_)skynet(_dot_)be>

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
    -Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania.

GCS/IT d+(-) s:+(++)>: a C++(+++)$ UMBSHI++++$ P+>++ L+ !E-(---) W+++(--) N+
!w--- O- M++ V PS++(+++) PE- Y+(++) PGP>+++ t+(+++) 5++(+++) X++(+++) R+(+++)
tv+(+++) b+(++++) DI+(++++) D+(++) G+(++++) e++>++++ h--- r---(+++)* z(+++)

_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg



<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>