Re: [Asrg] VPNs vs consent

Jose-Marcio Martins da Cruz <Jose-Marcio.Martins@mines-paristech.fr> Thu, 25 June 2009 13:30 UTC

Return-Path: <Jose-Marcio.Martins@mines-paristech.fr>
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 593A33A6DAB for <asrg@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 25 Jun 2009 06:30:52 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.249
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.249 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35]
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 0uCHBO+HHyix for <asrg@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 25 Jun 2009 06:30:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from boipeva.ensmp.fr (cobra.ensmp.fr [194.214.158.101]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5533C3A6D6B for <asrg@irtf.org>; Thu, 25 Jun 2009 06:30:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost.localdomain (minho.ensmp.fr [10.3.5.5]) (authenticated bits=0) by boipeva.ensmp.fr (8.14.3/8.14.3/JMMC-11/Feb/2009) with ESMTP id n5PCqawJ024557 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for <asrg@irtf.org>; Thu, 25 Jun 2009 14:52:36 +0200 (MEST)
Message-ID: <4A437393.3060105@mines-paristech.fr>
Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2009 14:54:43 +0200
From: Jose-Marcio Martins da Cruz <Jose-Marcio.Martins@mines-paristech.fr>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.8.1.21) Gecko/20090507 Fedora/1.1.16-1.fc11 SeaMonkey/1.1.16
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF <asrg@irtf.org>
References: <20090623213728.1825.qmail@simone.iecc.com> <4A41D773.50508@telmon.org> <4A41E506.2010106@mines-paristech.fr> <20090624160052.B5DC62428A@panix5.panix.com> <4A426B9D.7090901@mines-paristech.fr> <4A43618A.6000205@tana.it>
In-Reply-To: <4A43618A.6000205@tana.it>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Miltered: at boipeva with ID 4A437314.000 by Joe's j-chkmail (http : // j-chkmail dot ensmp dot fr)!
X-j-chkmail-Enveloppe: 4A437314.000/10.3.5.5/minho.ensmp.fr/localhost.localdomain/<Jose-Marcio.Martins@mines-paristech.fr>
Subject: Re: [Asrg] VPNs vs consent
X-BeenThere: asrg@irtf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
Reply-To: Jose-Marcio.Martins@mines-paristech.fr, 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: Thu, 25 Jun 2009 13:30:52 -0000

Alessandro Vesely wrote:
> Jose-Marcio Martins da Cruz wrote:

> 
> AFAIK, there is no way SMTP can be configured so that a given sending 
> location can be whitelisted. One can try and detect what MTA sends the 
> message and whitelist specific filters, presumably doing detection by 
> the IP address of each mailout. That's much like VPN: being at a higher 
> level doesn't ease the task. For example, assume someone trusts Gmail's 
> egress filtering and wants to skip content filtering for mail coming 
> from there. What work is required to accomplish (and maintain) that 
> task, on typical MTA software?

Hmmmm.... You're raising a problem which is similar to the problem of management of user 
preferences on a border smtp gateway. This isn't a problem at, say, gmail or mailbox 
providers as most of the time users have only one email address.

But talking about universities, or look alike organisations...

Myself, I have many **non shared** identities : only to cite two, the one you can see in 
this message and my login.

But also I have many **shared** identities. These identities correspond to email addresses 
  (administrative or not) which resolve to many people. I can hardly see some kind of 
management of *shared consent* for these addresses.