michael(_dot_)dillon(_at_)bt(_dot_)com wrote:
What I am suggesting is that we revive
the old principle of relaying which worked so well 15 years ago
ah yes, I remember those good old days, when every site needed to have
experts to tell ordinary users which routes through the Byzantine email
system were likely to work, and also how to write a source-routed
recipient address that would successfully get your mail there and get
the return address rewritten so that the message could be replied to.
if you were one of those experts, it made you feel valuable. :)
I do think there might be some merit in having designated outgoing mail
servers for any particular domain, but SPF records are a disaster, and
DKIM is only a very marginal improvement over nothing.
I also think there might be some merit in holding mail on the sender's
outgoing mail server until the receiver's MX is willing to deal with it,
thus pushing more of the costs toward the sender of a message. (as in,
we'll accept your mail immediately if it's accompanied by a signed
statement saying that it's been spam and virus validated by a trusted
filter, or if you can provide some assurance from a trusted third-party
that it's been sent from a recognized individual who can be held
accountable for sending malicious email or spam. otherwise, we're going
to defer it for awhile - say until our servers are less busy, and we're
going to rate-limit the unvalidated mail we accept from your domain.
in the meantime you can just queue it on your end.)
But there's no value added by third-party mail relaying that I can see.
It just adds cost and decreases reliability.
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf