ietf-mxcomp
[Top] [All Lists]

RE: why we should not be ambiguous about receiver behaviour

2004-04-22 13:27:43
From: Jon Kyme [mailto:jrk(_at_)merseymail(_dot_)com] 
Sent: Thursday, April 22, 2004 3:18 PM

Wayne, I  wrote:
Until such time that there is at least a proof-of-concept code that we
can all play with and collect real data on real email feeds, I will
strongly object to including the RFC2822 identities as something we
should work on.

This is a self-fulfilling, circular, kind of position don't you think? It
is invalidated by the first sight of an implementation which uses these
identities... but you've ruled them out of scope already... So you can't
have a MARID proposal which uses them...

The ESPC (Email Service Provider Coalition) technology committee members
will attempt to publish, for testing purposes, records for any rfc 2821 or
2822 authentication proposal that appears to have a reasonable level of
support. We represent collectively a huge number of senders (I'm going blank
on the number but it's in the 100s of thousands), and although not all of
our members or all of our clients are participating in testing, we should be
able to create a reasonable body of sender data for receivers to look at and
evaluate. It is skewed data in that it is overwhelmingly commercial, but it
does include transactional as well as promotional mail and a wide variety of
configurations with respect to the 2821 and 2822 addresses. ESPC member
company clients range from Fortune 500 companies to your local soccer
league.

Our observation so far is that just publishing the records is not
necessarily the straight forward exercise we had assumed it to be. This has
been a surprise. We are working on a report of our results to date (SPF and
Caller-ID).

Margaret.