Re: A 30% solution ; a 40% solution

On 5/13/2004 9:44 AM, Pete Resnick sent forth electrons to convey:

> On 5/12/04 at 7:36 PM -0700, Matthew Elvey wrote:
>
> > What will this proposal break?/require adapt?  forwarders? mailing 
> > lists? greeting card sites?
>
> It will break or require changes for forwarders and possibly greeting 
> card sites. (I've got in mind changes that can be made for them that 
> will work, but there is no question that they will either have to make 
> changes or they will break.) 
Do those changes require rewriting the MAIL FROM, ala SRS?

> Mailing lists (if they rewrite the MAIL FROM) should be fine. We've 
> talked some about ways to address these problems. Let's start another 
> thread if we want to go into it in detail.
> > Does it keep spammers from complying? If so, how?  If not, what 
> > *does* it accomplish?
>
> Let me answer this backwards: The main thing that doing the check with 
> the MAIL FROM domain is to deter joe-jobs. Secondarily, it can be used 
> (like the HELO/EHLO domain) for the hook into accreditation. So, 
> insofar as it prevents joe-jobs, spammers can't comply. Insofar as the 
> accreditation part goes, spammers can comply, but hopefully will 
> eventually become un-accredited.
Ok, so you claim that spammers who can't get accredited by an approved 
accreditor or whitelisted by an approved whitelyst or stay out of  
approved blacklists will be unable to send to recipients with that set 
of approvals? Good.
> > What does it impact, how many systems does it impact? MUA? MSA? MTA? 
> > MDA? DNS?
>
> I believe the main impact is in MDA (which has to perform the 
> function) and DNS (which has to provide the data). I don't think this 
> impacts MUA, MSA, or MTA. But I'm not sure exactly what you're asking. 
> (For instance, it might impact MUA if we want to get an "unverified" 
> message into the UI, but I'm not sure if you're thinking of things 
> like that.)
It impacts the MUA if, e.g. the mail server(s) used by the MUA probably 
has to be changed (by a (probably clueless, script-reading) support 
person dealing with a (more clueless) end user who is frustrated and 
doesn't get why their mail isn't working anymore.).  If this was 
necessary for an effective proposal, I'd be all for it, but I don't 
think it is.
> > At first blush, it seems that the 30% solution  breaks a lot
>
> Are forwarders and greeting card sites "a lot"?
Not really.  If this was necessary for an effective proposal, I'd be all 
for it, but I don't think it is.  It's borderline.  It's all the MUAs 
that may need to be touched that I'm more concerned by.
> > and doesn't suggest any workarounds.
>
> *It* doesn't. But then again, I was only thinking of proposing 
> semantics for the solution, not laying out all of the impacts. I'll 
> try and write up a separate "workaround" message.
> pr