On Sat, Dec 13, 2008 at 11:09:19AM -0800, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
Victor Duchovni wrote:
Don't know about the group, but I personally think that MUAs don't
need this, and would likely misuse it. Filters between the MUA and
MTA do need IPs for reputation lookups, but this specification may
not be the best vehicle.
I'd also like to hear more about the kind of misuse you envision. Can
you elaborate?
Well, misuse would be trying to assign reputation to messages *now*,
based on IPs (inevitably) recorded in the past. MUAs are the least agile
software component in the mail eco-system, they are years older than
content filters and MTAs, any reputation assessment mechanisms in MUAs
are liable to be years out of date, and in most cases poorly thought out
(because it is difficult to evolve the code base as new experience is
accumulated).
Also IMHO MUAs are frankly written by the wrong kind of programmers, they
undestand desktop interfaces well, but understand systems issues poorly.
I don't expect correct behaviour from MUAs and expect vendor inflexibility
on any design errors. As someone who manages infrastructure, I do not want
to delegate reputation assessment to the MUA, I simply don't trust it to
have been well designed or to be sufficiently up to date in its (likely
poor) design.
--
Viktor.
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html