Jon,
JJK> And I still stand by this, however, I've become concerned that if we
JK> *limit* ourselves to the 2821 identities (really limit I mean, ruling
JK> considerations of other identities out of scope), we'll produce a spec.
JK> that's not very useful to some important constituents,
spam is a complex problem and email is a complex system. it is
certain that any one control mechanism we introduce will be either
limited or useless. we get to choose which.
i'm hoping that my own preference is obvious. i'm also hoping it is
most other people's preference.
JK> Some people may have an interest in
JK> binding authorship and transport. We can't say that they're wrong.
maybe we can.
things like layer violations are a concern for good and serious
engineering reasons. also good and serious operations reasons.
and to the extent that we are supposed to focus on the "peer" MTA,
the originating MTA might not even be the peer...
JK> No, right. This is the basis of the forwarding issues that many people have
JK> such problems with.
yup.
JK> Taking all that into consideration, I've come to believe that allowing the
JK> publisher to identify the identities that a record applies to might be the
JK> best way.
I'm not entirely sure what you mean by this, but it sounds quite a bit
like defining a general method of letting others define specifics. On
the average, protocols that do that do not work.
JK> Or, viewed slghtly differently, we should support the publisher
JK> in making a richer description of what their "legitimate" mail looks like.
On the average, artificial intelligence algorithms do not work well at
the core of a high volume networking service like email. Alas, that's
the technical base that would be required to implement the sort of
description-based service you (and others) are suggesting.
d/
--
Dave Crocker <dcrocker-at-brandenburg-dot-com>
Brandenburg InternetWorking <www.brandenburg.com>
Sunnyvale, CA USA <tel:+1.408.246.8253>