Re: [Asrg] We don't need no stinkin IMAP or POP, was Adding a spam button to MUAs

Dave CROCKER <> Sat, 06 February 2010 20:20 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6FDC828C0E5 for <>; Sat, 6 Feb 2010 12:20:41 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.493
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.493 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.050, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, SUBJECT_FUZZY_TION=0.156]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id zgCl8Y5VUj0S for <>; Sat, 6 Feb 2010 12:20:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 64C4928C0E3 for <>; Sat, 6 Feb 2010 12:20:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [] ( []) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id o16KLSBo007558 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Sat, 6 Feb 2010 12:21:33 -0800
Message-ID: <>
Date: Sat, 06 Feb 2010 12:21:21 -0800
From: Dave CROCKER <>
Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv: Gecko/20100111 Thunderbird/3.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF <>
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV 0.92/10362/Fri Feb 5 23:14:06 2010 on
X-Virus-Status: Clean
X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.0 ( []); Sat, 06 Feb 2010 12:21:34 -0800 (PST)
Cc: John Levine <>
Subject: Re: [Asrg] We don't need no stinkin IMAP or POP, was Adding a spam button to MUAs
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
Reply-To:, Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF <>
List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 06 Feb 2010 20:20:42 -0000

On 2/6/2010 12:09 PM, John Levine wrote:
>>> Their POP and IMAP servers have thousands of different names, one for
>>> each hosting customer.
>> They've already got the thousands of different names.  Adding a second
>> to the DNS provisioning mechanism won't be that hard.
> In case it wasn't clear, each customer sets up his own DNS and CNAME.
> This means that if the mail provider adds this feature, they have to
> contact several thousand resellers and get them all to update their
> DNS.  I would characterize that as hard.

You've postulated a particular, idiosynchratic operational environment with 
thousands of administers.  There's nothing "wrong" with that environment, but we 
need to be careful that we don't require that it's characteristics dictate 
design requirements for everyone.

Basically, with an environment of the sort you describe, everything is 
relatively more difficult.

While it's fine to try to design something so that it's scaling characteristics 
are /better/ than linear, but it's typically also acceptable for it to be linear.


   Dave Crocker
   Brandenburg InternetWorking