ietf-mxcomp
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: A new SMTP "3821" [Re: FTC stuff...........]

2004-11-25 09:07:43

On Tue, 2004-11-23 at 12:09 -0500, Andrew Newton wrote:
On Nov 23, 2004, at 10:22 AM, Hector Santos wrote:

What Alan is suggesting, for which I strongly agree, is that the focus 
in solving the "problem" needs a revisiting of the SMTP model or more
specifically, the functional specification.

That has been and still is the basis for all the disagreements in this 
area.

The nature of Alan and Hector's belief is such that it could only ever
really be disproven, and never proven -- even it if _is_ in fact true.

The existence of a solution which does not require the world to be
changed wholesale would disprove their theory that such change is
required. On the other hand, the lack of such a solution merely shows
that _either_ there isn't one, or it just hasn't been found yet.

As it happens, I believe that multiple such solutions _have_ been found.
They just need the details to be ironed out and the deployment to pick
up. There is a lot of merit in all of CSV, SES, BATV, DK, IIM and the
other solutions being discussed, and very little evidence that wholesale
changes to existing practice are required, such as the changes which
would be required by SPF or SenderID.

Thus, I believe that anyone who seriously wants widespread deployment of
a scheme to reduce the amount of faked email should put their energy
into assisting one of those schemes, and only if they all turn out to be
impractical should we revisit the possibility of requiring wholesale
changes to the existing email infrastructure.

There seem to be far too many people with a personal attachment to some
particular scheme, who don't really seem interested in pursuing which is
_technically_ more appropriate. I'd like to see a little less emotion,
and a little more rationality. 

-- 
dwmw2


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>