Re: [Asrg] draft-irtf-asrg-criteria is missing Outbound MTA definition.

[Danny Angus <[e-mail]>]

On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 11:11 PM, Douglas Otis<[e-mail]> wrote:

> Please carefully review the Sender definition.

Ok. I take your point.
 The intention was to define a means of achieving the same effect as
PRA which is not encumbered by IP, in doing so I think I've
grandfathered in all of the weaknesses of PRA.
I now think that this is inappropriate in this context, and that the
sender definition should define the concept of a responsible
originating entity and leave the authors of techniques with the
problem of identification should their technique require it.

>>> Stronger statements along the lines of scaling might be helpful.  It
>>> seems increasing potential DNS transactions by an order of magnitude or more
>>> has not been given adequate consideration in some anti-spam efforts. :^(

Douglas, I agree with that sentiment.

But when you say this:

> These statements are not strong enough.  Email is being heavily abused.
>  Every incremental overhead must be carefully reviewed as to its potential
> impact.

I wonder just how I would strengthen this:

" any Proposed Technique MUST NOT achieve its end at the expense of
offloading the burden of cost onto External Systems without also
passing on any benefit to External Systems."

I think that any technique which managed to remove spam, reduce load
on the mail transport system and not involve any other components in
any new work would be an impossible utopia (or not SMTP!) .

Perhaps you could give me an example of wording which would meet your needs?

d.



>
> -Doug
> _______________________________________________
> Asrg mailing list
> [e-mail]
> http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg
>