[apps-discuss] Comments/questions about draft-akagiri-mail-divide-00

"Kurt Andersen (b)" <kboth@drkurt.com> Mon, 20 July 2015 12:55 UTC

Return-Path: <kurta@drkurt.com>
X-Original-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 471C11A871D for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 20 Jul 2015 05:55:54 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.378
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.378 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ldxLnBq1NfZS for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 20 Jul 2015 05:55:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pd0-x235.google.com (mail-pd0-x235.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c02::235]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0BC671A7D83 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Mon, 20 Jul 2015 05:55:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by pdjr16 with SMTP id r16so103401547pdj.3 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Mon, 20 Jul 2015 05:55:52 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=drkurt.com; s=20130612; h=mime-version:sender:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=WRQpLrP578XUaHF9FL7P9eBEt/07UFwQm89UtoTcw5c=; b=VUExqmR95TtpGLZIHrF56RZQL2kt6llcYoKQCb7bMdL0ILajMVowR5ZmQBrcC8KFrN EPKVXfayEmrpg6nvlISSt8RKzM7v4LARBQS5LLDDelHHwR8NLB6Wh8soeEXA3YXAXdfa RnapL0Xoal/VnkSV710fzBhe0rCAVkDG8yox4=
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:sender:date:message-id:subject:from :to:content-type; bh=WRQpLrP578XUaHF9FL7P9eBEt/07UFwQm89UtoTcw5c=; b=lm1LV8kOrgY9vhgqxb0R9Vy4EI2k3mpbFPc5OcS7/M+rsc4KpkoCgt5z8GXCkuCfFc lGKE4CF5mbgm2AlBt/n9e51vhRRajt3AMJh3mtMlU3IVODC/+OO2MUx7svza9mhfweMR qh02Z9KdDyOR3lF3yrGf2PuXiJVLrembQYQOYHC+SjjhQqcpaCF7CnVCUVDdTWcOezTt jiexIeXn0GG3IuXZ+1Kjv91Ek8jil8kWP3aak59bysqT+tkd/SV+YiPSUOPoRcgLiZp/ /iBPbrMBBO21elu0hBAXV6QGsfXdZC99OyRNabmaADz52Bt/1AVLq1TSjOdZlOVB1rG5 adxw==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQneTTZspKkOCcV0SBYZYRimlVPZmXRvCzVzGopbySHg4wncw5Nb2mNibPfQRoPyCz0vf6qg
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.70.133.98 with SMTP id pb2mr59211023pdb.2.1437396952630; Mon, 20 Jul 2015 05:55:52 -0700 (PDT)
Sender: kurta@drkurt.com
Received: by 10.66.183.200 with HTTP; Mon, 20 Jul 2015 05:55:52 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2015 14:55:52 +0200
X-Google-Sender-Auth: NicDeE1zPKpQs57lFm5z_7hLHNw
Message-ID: <CABuGu1rSg06qewhNsA0g3b+_f1ppJiA4SY39GB_3zfUqGQkNEA@mail.gmail.com>
From: "Kurt Andersen (b)" <kboth@drkurt.com>
To: IETF Apps Discuss <apps-discuss@ietf.org>, takehito.akagiri@mail.rakuten.com
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a11c3bc20c368e3051b4e0e6e"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/apps-discuss/RUjkTtOEs-3W1323NjSmuwWB2yo>
Subject: [apps-discuss] Comments/questions about draft-akagiri-mail-divide-00
X-BeenThere: apps-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols <apps-discuss.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/apps-discuss/>
List-Post: <mailto:apps-discuss@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2015 12:55:54 -0000

After the presentation about this proposal in APPSAWG this morning, I've
read through the proposal and have the following questions:

1) What is the benefit to recipients (not the receivers) of this system? It
seems that, at best, some coarse categorization of mail types can happen,
but I don't see how it is useful to me as a recipient to rely on a sender's
characterization of their email.
2) I don't see any benefit for receivers (the MSO/ISP who runs the mail
system). This seems like it causes them to have to deploy a bunch (up to
8x) of receiving systems.
3) As a sender, I also don't see how this provides any benefit. If I am a
good sender, then I will have a good reputation in any reliable reputation
service and if I'm malicious, this system seems like it gives me a variety
of options to try to subvert the process. Having different receivers
specify individual reputation services that they want me to certify with
does not seem scalable. How would a sender such as Yahoo even consider such
a proposal?

Even if this was limited to something like trying to automate/publicly
publish a "trusted sender" channel such as some receivers have available,
I'm not sure that scaling such a thing is compatible with the intent of
limited access.

--Kurt Andersen