On Dec 1, 5:25am, Hector Santos wrote:
}
} > I dispute that the existing protocol supports Hector's position. As I
} > said in another message, I also dispute that VRFY can be adapted for this
} > purpose in any useful way.
}
} I already proved that it works.
You've proved that spammers use garbage envelope sender addresses. We
already knew that.
} You have not shown that it does not work.
I'm not trying to show that it does not work.
I'm trying convince YOU to show two things, which you have not yet shown:
(1) WSCAP works _better_ than a system such as LMAP that uses something
lighter weight than SMTP for the callbacks.
(2) WSCAP does not impose an undue burden by requiring third-party
SMTP servers to disavow every forged address that appears to be
in their domain.
Your response to (1) seems always to be to change the subject, by saying
"but WSCAP works now, and needs no changes to SMTP!" The thread on which
this message is a reply is actually an argument about just the "needs no
changes" clause, which has become a rathole.
You keep dimissing (2) as a scalability issue, but please note that it
is not a scalability issue for the servers that deploy WSCAP -- it is a
scalability issue for servers that _ARE PROBED BY_ WSCAP. And it is a
larger scalability issue even than bogus DSNs. You've waved your hands
a lot, but you haven't convinced me that this isn't cost-shifting on a
much larger scale than you imagine.
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg