Claudio Telmon wrote:
I know. However, this is the part of the framework that I see as least
critical in terms of acceptance. Both the MUA and the MTA will need some
add-on/patch/whatever in order to implement the protocol, so this part
of the framework will come "with the patch".
While I have a couple of ideas on how this could be accomplished, the
MTA token database management issue is one of the two I'm still looking
for comments, the other being whether it is true that spam in "small
text messages" would be easier/lighter to deal with by antispam tools.
I'll take a deeper look into this (but I don't have enough time now).
I have the feeling that this is part of a larger problem which is how to inform a border
SMTP gateway about caracteristics of final addresses in internal mail servers.
One example we were talking about is just what are the valid internal addresses which,
with your needs for the consent framework, is a sub problem of the larger one.
For the problem of checking the validity of internal addresses (e.g.), there are many
solutions, but none of them is perfect.
Maybe this problem could be taken out of your proposal and handled as a global
one.
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)irtf(_dot_)org
http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg