Dave Crocker <dcrocker(_at_)brandenburg(_dot_)com> wrote:
1. SMTP is equivalent to a link-level, point-to-point protocol. As
such, it has plenty of negative feedback and congestion control.
Which is why people using Greylisting have shown it to be useless.
Hmm... that doesn't sound right. Ah, that's it: "plenty != sufficient"
The larger mail service is a classic datagram model, like UDP. And,
no, it has no congestion control. However as one contemplates this
problem, keep in mind the challenge of doing meaningful end-to-end
congestion control in the face of multi-day latencies.
I don't see constructive criticism on the *technical* merits of the
documents. Vague generalities sound helpful, but don't contribute
meaningfully to achieving any end goal.
2. I think folks are trying to make the underlying transport service
be responsible for higher-level, user-to-user problems.
Not me. I'm looking at tweaking the underlying transport service so
it's less amenable to being abused by user-to-user problems.
Remember that spam is a social problem, not a technical one.
Ah. So the technical flaws in SMTP which *enable* spammers are
meaningless. The "joe jobbing" and forgery associated with the
attempted theft of account information are direct results of those
technical flaws... but addressing those flaws is a low priority, as
spam is a social problem, not a technical one.
So, worry about the end-to-end object/envelope, rather than the
hop-by-hop transfer protocool.
I'm sorry Dave, but everything I see from you can be paraphrased as
"SMTP is perfect. Let's do nothing technical to solve this problem."
Alan DeKok.
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg