Eric Allman wrote:
--On November 8, 2007 4:55:36 PM -0800 Michael Thomas <mike(_at_)mtcc(_dot_)com>
wrote:
Maybe rather than proposing a change, it might be more productive
to talk through what the problem actually is? I'm not convinced
that random reports from potentially untrustworthy outsiders is
what's wanted here.
The MAAWG people who want this are hardly "untrustworthy outsiders" ---
they are the people who have to deal with this on a daily basis. ISPs
and large senders are already doing this by bi-lateral arrangements.
This is no more than an attempt to codify what is happening already and
which is going to expand. We can sit around arguing about whether this
is the theoretically "right" thing to do and have the world pass us by,
or we can try to do something useful. Personally, I'm going for useful.
+1
Eric, do you have any info, technical material on how the existing
pre-arrange reporting is being done? Proprietary, open standard?
--
Sincerely
Hector Santos, CTO
http://www.santronics.com
http://santronics.blogspot.com
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html