ietf-mxcomp
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Philosophical discussions (was Re: draft-schlitt-spf-classic-01.txt )

2005-06-09 12:53:07

Douglas Otis <dotis(_at_)mail-abuse(_dot_)org> wrote:
Assume you sent a message to a simple exploding list for example.  While
you could conclude that once the list server accepted your message, it
now becomes the list server's message.

  I think the word we're missing here is "anthology".  Anthologies are
collections of copyrighted works by individual authors, along with an
editor who has a "collection copyright" on the sum total of the work.

  One email message, therefore, is an anthology with multiple authors.
One person wrote the text, another person wrote the quoted text (if
any), the mailer wrote some of the headers (message-id, etc), and so
on.  Reputation for the collected work impacts all of the authors in
that collection, to varying degrees.

From a reputation standpoint, this is not desirable from the
perspective of the list operator, who would like any abuse to
directly impact those they see as accountable.

  If I send a copy of a DVD to this list, and this list re-distributes
it, the list owner may be responsible for "contributoy infringement".
Reputation affects both me as author of the message, and the list
owner as distributor.

  If we were to require that list owners *not* have their reputation
affected by messages they re-send, then spammers can hide behind lists.

The abuse that concerns you has to do with how the accountable entity is
determined.

  s/entity/entities/

  That's really the crux of my argument.

  They can use a proposal that doesn't have problems.

Which proposal is that?  It is not draft-schlitt-spf-classic-01, or
draft-lyon-senderid-core-01.  These two drafts are in serious conflict,
and the Sender-ID draft claims that server authorization is equivalent
to sender authentication, whether for the bounce-address or the PRA.  Do
you really think it is safe to ignore the intentions of Microsoft?

  Nope.  And if all of the proposals re so terrible, we should see if
we can come up with another proposal that isn't so bad.

  Alan DeKok.