On 1 Sep 2006 05:39:02 -0000, John Levine <asrg(_at_)johnlevine(_dot_)com>
wrote:
Recognizing mail from known correspondents is a very thoroughly solved
problem.
I agree, yet my system is designed to recognize mail from unknown sources.
Strangers will frequently send mail without using a sub-address. This mail
will only get bounced if it receives a poor score via a filter. If the
stranger is using a popular MUA then the bounce is resent and successfully
received without either party being aware that it was bounced in the first
place (assuming that the popular MUAs have updated their software).
As a last resort the stranger can manually 'Reply' to the bounce if his MUA
isn't updated. This situation, however, is unlikely as there is an
amazingly minuscule number of popular MUAs.
But the spam problem is not the same as the introduction problem. They
are somewhat related, since it is certainly true that people who have a
history of sending non-spammy mail will probably continue to do so,
but there's all sorts of real but complex situations that it doesn't
deal with at all well, with discussion lists like this one leading
the pack.
Again, updates by a minuscule number of MUAs effectively eliminates the
introduction problem for this system. Discussion lists like this one would
never face the introduction problem if the administrator used one of the
popular MUAs (again assuming that the popular MUAs have updated their
software).
Regarding an earlier question of creating and tracking combinatorials:
individual systems can decide for themselves if it is too complex to send
multiple sub-addresses to the recipients of a group email. The efficacy of
this system will not suffer much if only one sub-address is sent out with a
group email. Tracking all of the sub-addresses does not strike me as a
strenuous task in an age where we have email systems that hash every email.
Michael
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg