On 9/17/07, SM <sm(_at_)resistor(_dot_)net> wrote:
At 13:30 17-09-2007, Michael Kaplan wrote:
I argue that this is an excellent way to use bounces (even if a
small number are misdirected). I'm not sure what "unreliable" refers to
More sites may block bounces or drop them in the bit bucket.
Section 9.3 calculates how RIA, when adopted by 50% of the global
population, will on average increase 'spam' sent to innocent users by 0.2%.
Unlike with real spam BATV can perfectly block this 0.2% increase in spam
received. I doubt that RIA will be the straw that breaks the back of the
bounce system.
Section 5.2 outlines how surprisingly simple it is to distribute
Auto-Resend to most of the population, and the last bullet point of
section 11 details how unnecessary Auto-Resend is. A routine
Windows Update patch would take care of most of the Outlooks out there.
That's assuming that the operating system is still supported and
installs the updates. There are a lot of legacy systems out
there. I won't ask who is going to pay for all this.
Perfect adoption of Auto-Resend is impossible; fortunately it is not
needed. Auto-Resend only enhances transparency. Remember, if your email
domain (your domain doesn't have an SPF record) uses a single MTA then only
a single person using that domain will need to manually resend a single
bounce; every future non-forwarded email sent by anyone in that domain will
be authenticated. Auto-Resend is a good feature, but RIA will remain almost
completely invisible to users even without Auto-Resend.
Who will pay for it? I expect that the client and server software
developers will take it upon themselves to incorporate Auto-Resend as a
routine feature. It is a one-time software upgrade. It is not like a
statistical filter that requires constant maintenance.
Michael
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg