| 
 the curse of the S(imple) protocols, was: Re: e2e2007-08-17 06:52:44
 
On 17-aug-2007, at 14:56, Keith Moore wrote:
 
It would also restrict you to using a Return-path which is valid for
the network from which you are sending the mail.  That may not be
practical in some environments where you don't have an existing
account and you can only send mail through the local mail server (no
access to submission port on home server, e.g. outgoing TCP 587
blocked or network unreachable).
 
 So what you're saying is that any mail server should be able to  
source
messages from any mail user using any email address in any domain.
 
 
Sorry, that's not a reasonable desire in my opinion.
 
 
what's unreasonable is trying to use IP addresses as authentication
tokens, or expecting applications to know about network topology in
order to route messages.
 
I agree that this suboptimal (but given that simple email users such  
as myself have so few options my server does take the source IP  
address into consideration when filtering at this point in time). 
What we need to filter on are (of course) the identities of the  
servers and the originators of messages. But the former requires that  
servers don't trust random originators, hence my message, and that  
there is some way to make sure an originator is who he or she claims  
to be that works a bit better than simply taking the From: line at  
face value. 
The counter argument is that spammers will simply use disposable  
identities. However, that at least makes sure that if I get a message  
from ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org I know that it's actually from ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org so  
whitelisting works and I don't get bombarded with bounces when a  
spammer uses my domain, and if we make getting an identity take  
enough time or money, spammers won't be able to get them fast enough  
to spam much before they're blacklisted. 
Then again, misspelled fishing would be an order of magnitude harder  
if banks and retailers started using S/MIME, which is widely  
implemented today, but they can't be bothered, so it looks like  
protocol design isn't going to save the world any time soon. 
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
 
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |  | 
Re: e2e, (continued)
Re: e2e, Douglas Otis
Message not availableRE: e2e, SM
Re: e2e, Douglas Otis
RE: e2e, michael.dillon
Message not availableRE: e2e, SM
Re: e2e, Iljitsch van Beijnum
Re: e2e, Keith Moore
the curse of the S(imple) protocols, was: Re: e2e,
Iljitsch van Beijnum <=
Re: the curse of the S(imple) protocols, was: Re: e2e, John C Klensin
Re: the curse of the S(imple) protocols, was: Re: e2e, Keith Moore
Re: the curse of the S(imple) protocols, was: Re: e2e, Henning Schulzrinne
Re: the curse of the S(imple) protocols, was: Re: e2e, Steven M. Bellovin
Re: the curse of the S(imple) protocols, was: Re: e2e, Iljitsch van Beijnum
Re: the curse of the S(imple) protocols, was: Re: e2e, Steven M. Bellovin
Re: the curse of the S(imple) protocols, was: Re: e2e, John Levine
Re: the curse of the S(imple) protocols, was: Re: e2e, John C Klensin
Re: the curse of the S(imple) protocols, was: Re: e2e, SM
Re: the curse of the S(imple) protocols, was: Re: e2e, John C Klensin
 |  | 
 |