Scott A Crosby wrote:
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.
Phil Baker mentioned previously that authetication domains, instead of
individual email addresses can help things. Especially, when the
authentication is done via DNS, without any external parties involved.
In that case, there is a less of a conflict.
Yakov
-------
Yakov Shafranovich / asrg <at> shaftek.org
SolidMatrix Technologies, Inc. / research <at> solidmatrix.com
"And this too shall come to pass"
-------
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg