Alan DeKok wrote:
Yakov Shafranovich <research(_at_)solidmatrix(_dot_)com> wrote:
The hard question would be how to define policy elements that people can
agree on, which has been the sticking point until now. Even the elements
defined in Carl's draft, people had issues with. Some kind of a registry
would probably be needed.
The policies can be opaque tokens in a registry, in which case
spammers can claim they don't know about the registry, and therefore
can't understand the policy.
Or, the policy can be text, in which case there are international
language issues.
SMTP is pseudo-English text. I don't see why any policies published
in SMTP or related protocols can't be pseudo-English text, too.
I see the problem not in defining the format of policy tokens, but
rather defitions of policies. For example, if your policy is not to
accept UBE or UCE, how do you define UBE or UCE? Since defitions are
very hard to arrive at, as we have seen, this would not be an easy task.
Yakov
-------
Yakov Shafranovich / asrg <at> shaftek.org
SolidMatrix Technologies, Inc. / research <at> solidmatrix.com
"Some lies are easier to believe than the truth" (Dune)
-------
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg