Douglas Otis wrote:
On 8/18/09 10:17 AM, Chris Lewis wrote:
Bill Cole wrote:
I don't see how this reduces the effort required on the receiving side in
comparison to currently common practices.
Precisely - in fact, it increases the work the receiver has to do,
probably substantially.
Consider: the offer/callback approach is identical to SMTP up to the
DATA keyword.
Not if MUA or specialized MDAs gather the messages marked as desired. A
selection based upon the offers should reduce the overhead considerably.
This does not provide any new mechanisms for deciding what is, in fact,
wanted.
Step back. The "hard part" of this proposal is deciding what email is
desired. The proposal makes no suggestions on something "new" that
could be used to do this. As it stands, it's simply a more convoluted
and expensive version of SMTP.
What does "pull" provide that existing "push" does not in terms of
improved filtering? Until and unless you can answer that, it's moot.
Does it provide a innovative way of deciding what email is desired? No.
That you don't transfer the DATA if the email is undesired? Given that
the vast majority of spam is well under 10K in size, this pales in
comparison to the complexity and network loading of actually performing
the pull.
Certainly, you can extend the push to include additional stuff. Like
DKIM or something different. But that's just as easily done/possible in
push, and already is.
Letting the MUA fill up with offers, and forcing the user to to decide
what's wanted has the same problems as junk folders. The legit email
gets lost in the noise.
In fact, junk folders are "pull". How well do they work? Not well.
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)irtf(_dot_)org
http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg