--On 26 June 2009 11:37:21 -0700 Douglas Otis <dotis(_at_)mail-abuse(_dot_)org>
wrote:
This draft fails to include a definition that encompasses a crucial and
safe point of control essential for effective spam mitigation. The
missing definition is that of the Outbound MTA, the entity granting
access and facilitating public SMTP exchanges to other domains.
Email-Arch's definition tends to understate the role with: Outbound MTA,
an MTA that relays messages to other ADMDs.
Defining an "outbound MTA" would be useful, I guess.
What level?
The paper isn't discussing particular proposals, but you seem to be saying
that it should. It's discussing certain desirable properties of proposals.
Perhaps you're looking for more detail, or something closer to an actual
solution.
If you want to say that a desirable proposal would be scalable, then that's
fine. If you want to say that SPF doesn't scale for a particular reason,
then that's outside the scope of this proposal.
--
Ian Eiloart
IT Services, University of Sussex
01273-873148 x3148
For new support requests, see http://www.sussex.ac.uk/its/help/
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)irtf(_dot_)org
http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg