Re: [Asrg] [ASRG] SMTP pull anyone?

Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it> Tue, 18 August 2009 12:51 UTC

Return-Path: <vesely@tana.it>
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 2780F3A680F for <asrg@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 18 Aug 2009 05:51:22 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.569
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.569 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.150, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_IT=0.635, HOST_EQ_IT=1.245, MANGLED_SPAM=2.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
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 yJuqvv1tBKGe for <asrg@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 18 Aug 2009 05:51:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from wmail.tana.it (mail.tana.it [62.94.243.226]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0D52A3A63EC for <asrg@irtf.org>; Tue, 18 Aug 2009 05:51:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.15.114] (wf-salyut.imt.ru [212.16.1.106]) (AUTH: CRAM-MD5 ale@tana.it, TLS: TLS1.0, 256bits, RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1) by wmail.tana.it with esmtp; Tue, 18 Aug 2009 14:48:58 +0200 id 00000000005DC02F.000000004A8AA33A.00000F42
Message-ID: <4A8AA40B.5060801@tana.it>
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2009 16:52:27 +0400
From: Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.22 (Windows/20090605)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF <asrg@irtf.org>
References: <20090818033801.4352.qmail@simone.iecc.com> <D30442DC-16E5-4827-864F-502FFF590BE4@blighty.com>
In-Reply-To: <D30442DC-16E5-4827-864F-502FFF590BE4@blighty.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [Asrg] [ASRG] SMTP pull anyone?
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: Tue, 18 Aug 2009 12:51:22 -0000

Steve Atkins wrote:
> On Aug 17, 2009, at 8:38 PM, John Levine wrote:
> 
>>> The model is like a simple C/R involving Message ID of a mail. The 
>>> sending domain provides the Message ID and allows computational time 
>>> for the receiving domain and then query the sending domain to send 
>>> the message.
>>
>> This model has been proposed many, many, times before.  I suppose we should
>> make a page for it in the ASRG wiki of anti-spam techniques even though it's
>> more of a mail system redesign than an anti-spam measure.

Agreed; however, I'm out of office this week, and will consider 
doing this only when I'll be back. (As a new entry in 
http://wiki.asrg.sp.am/wiki/Taxonomy_of_anti-spam_techniques#SMTP_techniques 
I suppose).

IMHO, this model --this instance of it-- stems from the common 
qui pro quo generated by speaking of clients (or servers) as if 
they were hosts, rather than processes: Most spam comes from 
clients, I want to eliminate it, hence I will only pull mail 
from servers.

> If you do, mention RFC 2017.

Good point. External-Body resembles "SMTP pull", except for 
implying that the content should be retrieved by the MUA.

RFC 2111's mid URLs could be used to retrieve a message sent by 
SMTP (or stored via IMAP) if access by Message-ID were provided.

In order to infringe the Tumbleweed patent, AFAICS, one 
additionally has to automate checking the log file, as an 
alternative to positive DSNs for the externally stored content.