On Sat, 29 Nov 2003 12:44:33 +0100, "Dag Kihlman"
<dag(_dot_)kihlman(_at_)htu(_dot_)se> writes:
I agree with Scott: people seem unwilling to make hard choices.
That wasn't the comment I was making. More so that it seems that
there's two threads:
1. Email servers should be authenticated and authorized to send
messages to prevent abuse.
2. Anyone should be able to make their own email sending server --
there shouldn't be some sort of oligopoly of those allowed to send
email, with all others forbidden.
#1 includes techniques like public key crypto, dial-up blacklists,
hash-cache, and other micropayment or pseudo-micropayment schemes.
#2 includes things like anonymous email. No centralized control the
ability for anyone to make their own legitimate mailing list.
These constraints seem to be almost constantly in conflict. Which of
the two properties is more important? I have problems keeping up with
the traffic here, so if there is already a consensus, I apologize for
the spam.
If control and locked down mail servers is the most important, what
proposals are consistant with that but maximize freedom to set up ones
own mailinglists or own servers.
If egalatarian servers are is the most important, what is the maximum
security we can do to lock them down without impacting that?
The SMTP protocol is old, ideal for spammers and inefficient.
I rather like SMTP. Its a good protocol and suitable for layering
other protocols on top of. Tweaks may be needed, but I think its
fairly good.
Scott
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg