Re: [Asrg] MX, was Adding a spam button to MUAs

Douglas Otis <> Wed, 10 February 2010 19:38 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 707583A7593 for <>; Wed, 10 Feb 2010 11:38:16 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.356
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.356 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.086, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, SUBJECT_FUZZY_TION=0.156]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ZtYs8OdwxxHI for <>; Wed, 10 Feb 2010 11:38:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 634723A7461 for <>; Wed, 10 Feb 2010 11:38:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 495B0A94791 for <>; Wed, 10 Feb 2010 19:39:26 +0000 (UTC)
Message-ID: <>
Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2010 11:39:26 -0800
From: Douglas Otis <>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; en-US; rv: Gecko/20100111 Thunderbird/3.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <> <> <> <201002101854.NAA02859@Sparkle.Rodents-Montreal.ORG>
In-Reply-To: <201002101854.NAA02859@Sparkle.Rodents-Montreal.ORG>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------080504040508070004000907"
Subject: Re: [Asrg] MX, 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: Wed, 10 Feb 2010 19:38:16 -0000

On 2/10/10 10:49 AM, der Mouse wrote:
>>> Do you think a political campaign that resulted in - say - all UK
>>> educational establishments, or all domains (or both)
>>> implementing such a rule would change their minds?  What if Google
>>> also implemented the rule.
>> BTW, are you suggesting that Internet Standards should be determined
>> by what Google does?
> Why not?  The "rough consensus" appears to be that "anything is
> acceptable provided Google does it", so on "rough consensus and running
> code" grounds, yes, what Google does _should_ set the spec.
They've likely experienced a fair amount of nuisance traffic generated 
by prolific email abuse.  Why should each host on the Internet publish 
records with a sole purpose of indicating public exchange of SMTP is NOT 
desired?  It should be easy for organizations to make exceptions for 
link-local hosts monitored via email, when too bothered to 
auto-configure MX records.

It would be nice if everyone "formally" adopted their convention of 
noting sender IP address in A-R headers as well, essential for 
uncovering compromised systems.

Those two good behaviors copied at large would indeed help curb much of 
email related abuse.