Re: [Asrg] "Mythical" Global Reputation System

Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it> Sat, 19 December 2009 10:25 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 C8C533A684E for <asrg@core3.amsl.com>; Sat, 19 Dec 2009 02:25:17 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.121
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.121 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.002, BAYES_50=0.001, HELO_EQ_IT=0.635, HOST_EQ_IT=1.245, 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 2vLEONuEMYdx for <asrg@core3.amsl.com>; Sat, 19 Dec 2009 02:25:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: from wmail.tana.it (www.tana.it [62.94.243.226]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E4B943A6825 for <asrg@irtf.org>; Sat, 19 Dec 2009 02:25:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mach-4.tana.it (mach-4.tana.it [194.243.254.189]) (AUTH: CRAM-MD5 ale@tana.it, TLS: TLS1.0, 256bits, RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1) by wmail.tana.it with esmtp; Sat, 19 Dec 2009 11:24:58 +0100 id 00000000005DC02F.000000004B2CA9FA.000018F0
Message-ID: <4B2CAA71.6090201@tana.it>
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 2009 11:26:57 +0100
From: Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.23 (Macintosh/20090812)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF <asrg@irtf.org>
References: <20091211011855.13454.qmail@simone.iecc.com> <4B21DE58.6090901@mail-abuse.org> <20091211144149.GF24477@verdi> <4B227928.4030002@mail-abuse.org> <4B236972.5080903@tana.it> <20091212153130.GG24477@verdi> <4B27D881.8050905@tana.it> <20091215194641.GJ24477@verdi> <4B282679.2080609@mail-abuse.org>
In-Reply-To: <4B282679.2080609@mail-abuse.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Subject: Re: [Asrg] "Mythical" Global Reputation System
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: Sat, 19 Dec 2009 10:25:18 -0000

Douglas Otis wrote:
> On 12/15/09 11:46 AM, John Leslie wrote:
>>> I agree a vouching service may cash a fee from the mail domain they 
>>> vouch for. This does not imply corruption, though.
>>
>>     There are actual expenses involved in vouching. A fee is needed to
>> cover these in most cases.
>
> Running just a feedback conduit service, information gained might help 
> assist other email related services that could offset the related costs. 
>  Consolidating reports also helps defray network expenses, by utilizing 
> input more than output directions.

This thread has become quite intricate. Many useful ideas, but they 
are difficult to sort out because there's little concordance on 
foundations... As a sort of kōan, let me ask this deliverability 
question:

  What are the differences between being vouched for by an MGRS and
  relaying through an external smart host?