On Jun 5, 2006, at 5:30 PM, Jim MacLeod wrote:
On 6/5/06, Daniel Feenberg <feenberg(_at_)nber(_dot_)org> wrote:
> I wonder what's next, an ESMTP extension replacing DATA with a
URI that
> could be retrieved ala ETRN?
>
That suggestion is frequently made, and this seems to be a way to
avoid
such things.
(Please forgive me if I'm making a newbie suggestion. I realize
that this is not The Universal Answer To The Spam Problem, If Only
Everyone Would Adopt It, but it seems like an interesting area for
research.)
...and that model is bad why? Obviously, if implemented with FTP-
like back-channel connections, it would be a nightmare, but if
implemented with a well-known port and a bit of auth, I don't see
too many problems.
Benefits:
- it pushes the email burden back onto the sender - for real, not
like many anti-spam companies claim.
- it makes the sender easier to track.
- it would seem to reduce the spam-zombie problem by requiring that
inbound connections to the mail sender be available through the
firewall.
- it gives the receiving MTA the option not to retrieve the email
message.
Did you take a look at RFC 1521 or RFC 2017?
Cheers,
Steve
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg