Re: [Asrg] What are the IPs that sends mail for a domain?

Ian Eiloart <iane@sussex.ac.uk> Fri, 19 June 2009 08:19 UTC

Return-Path: <iane@sussex.ac.uk>
X-Original-To: asrg@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: asrg@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A76E93A6906 for <asrg@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 19 Jun 2009 01:19:11 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.557
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.557 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.042, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Euq5blS4AaBI for <asrg@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 19 Jun 2009 01:19:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lynndie.uscs.susx.ac.uk (lynndie.uscs.susx.ac.uk [139.184.14.87]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AFD353A67F0 for <asrg@irtf.org>; Fri, 19 Jun 2009 01:19:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lewes.staff.uscs.susx.ac.uk ([139.184.134.43]:54739) by lynndie.uscs.susx.ac.uk with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.64) (envelope-from <iane@sussex.ac.uk>) id KLH8I2-000981-QF for asrg@irtf.org; Fri, 19 Jun 2009 09:20:26 +0100
Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2009 09:19:22 +0100
From: Ian Eiloart <iane@sussex.ac.uk>
Sender: iane@sussex.ac.uk
To: asrg@irtf.org
Message-ID: <73B9CA3D486A5AE87C18AD17@lewes.staff.uscs.susx.ac.uk>
In-Reply-To: <4A3AFB54.9020909@billmail.scconsult.com>
References: <10520166.1991245216397431.JavaMail.franck@somehost-55.sv2.equinix.net> <4A3AFB54.9020909@billmail.scconsult.com>
Originator-Info: login-token=Mulberry:01ZwwLbNBtedGoeV/O0zLagX7fzYQsxsoy3Hc=; token_authority=support@its.sussex.ac.uk
X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Mac OS X)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
X-Sussex: true
X-Sussex-transport: remote_smtp
Subject: Re: [Asrg] What are the IPs that sends mail for a domain?
X-BeenThere: asrg@irtf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
Reply-To: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF <asrg@irtf.org>
List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF <asrg.irtf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg>, <mailto:asrg-request@irtf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.irtf.org/mail-archive/web/asrg>
List-Post: <mailto:asrg@irtf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:asrg-request@irtf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg>, <mailto:asrg-request@irtf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2009 08:19:11 -0000

--On 18 June 2009 22:43:32 -0400 Bill Cole <asrg3@billmail.scconsult.com> 
wrote:

>
> I don't think that principle is wrong. Also, I can't think of many
> examples of RFC's successfully performing the role you describe of
> leading a significant change in practice rather than describing what is
> already widely being done to good effect.

Which is why I said it has to be done the other way around. Some 
organisation with a significant email user base needs to take a lead on 
this. It could be a large ISP, a large webmail provider, a government, or 
some other body. It has to be done before the situation gets out of hand, 
though.

-- 
Ian Eiloart
IT Services, University of Sussex
01273-873148 x3148
For new support requests, see http://www.sussex.ac.uk/its/help/