David Maxwell wrote:
On Wed, Dec 10, 2003 at 05:38:50PM -0500, Yakov Shafranovich wrote:
David Maxwell wrote:
Of course, both problems suffer from the issue that they are on the
sender side - most people are more concerned about the spam their
network recieves than the spam their network sends, and they fail to
perceive the relationship between the two.
Giving tools to both the sender and the receiver will help more than
just one side having them. That's why it looks like to me that both
strategies are helpful, and let both sides of the network do something
about the abuse.
One of the main reasons I asked the question was to draw the line
between functions and implementations.
In this case, we have a functional change to email infrastructure - from
'any to any' -> 'approved MTA to any'.
There are at least two implementations of that functional change -
MTAMark, and outbound port 25 blocking.
These two implementations have a few differences in deployment,
maintainence, and effect on network traffic. Simply put though, they
solve the same problem, so they can be evaluated head-to-head when it
comes time to making recommendations.
Then the next logical step would be writing up a comparison, perhaps
expanding it to other protocols as well. Any volunteers?
Yakov
-------
Yakov Shafranovich / asrg <at> shaftek.org
SolidMatrix Technologies, Inc. / research <at> solidmatrix.com
"But in this world nothing can be said to be certain, except death and
taxes" (Benjamin Franklin)
-------
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg