Having a requirement that SMTP creates anonymity in hostile
situations is a simple way to guarantee that every anti-spam proposal
will fail to satisfy that requirement, and will therefore be rejected.
I think that the requirement for anonymity is being mis-stated here.
What is really required is untraceability. This is not really true anonymity
since senders want to be able to establish reputations in general.
Simple architectural proposal:
Sender X sends email to mail forwarder who acts as a gateway, adding the
necessary information to authenticate the gateway as the party vouching for
the message.
The sender can use a proprietary protocol for this, at the extreme using a
steganographic mechanism, including an Adam Back style hash cash proof that
some work has been expended.
Phill
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg