Seth Breidbart <sethb(_at_)panix(_dot_)com> wrote:
So such messages are *indistinguishable* from spam.
Only if you have a rather weak distinguisher. There are a lot of ways
to distinguish this message from spam,
During the SMTP phase, before the message body is received? Nope.
There are very few, if any, ways to distinguish such messages from spam.
If I use my own email address then it isn't forgery, period.
You appear to be completely missing the point of my entire
argument. *You* believe that such messages aren't spam, but you're
the originator. Everyone already knows that the originators love
their messages, and want them to be recieved.
As the recipient *I* don't know that such forged messages aren't
spam.
If you're not going to address that problem, there isn't any point
in continuing this conversation.
If you want to use that as a distinguishing characteristic, fine. I'd
claim that The New York Times is a "well-known and easily traceable
source", though.
Bully for you. I may not agree. I may not be able to configure my
mailer to magically "know" a near-infinite list of "well-known"
sources.
Once again, how does my recipient MTA know this? All you're talking
about is general concepts "of course you should trust the NYT".
OK... why? How? How do I express that trust, or enforce it in my
MTA? so far, you've ignored that topic entirely.
Apparently, the NY Times is willing to email articles on my bahelf to
people when I ask it to, though it won't show them the article
directly unless they register. Their copyright, their business model,
their toys, their rules.
Bully for them.
My business model is that I don't want to deal with people who forge
messages. It's simply to expensive for me to verify those messages,
as the vast majority of spam I receive is forged. So I have a
question for you:
Should I be forced to accept such forged messages from the NY times?
If the answer is "yes", then you're a spammer.
If the answer is "no", then the NY times (and anyone else) must jump
through MY hoops in order to talk to me. My MTA, my business model,
my rules. If they don't like it, they don't have to talk to me.
My reason for being involved in ASRG is to design a system where
*everyones* acceptance policies can be published, and used.
They can do what they want. If you don't like their business model,
that isn't their problem.
And if I don't like their business model, that's perfectly fine.
Alan Dekok.
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg