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

Douglas Otis <dotis@mail-abuse.org> Wed, 10 February 2010 19:38 UTC

Return-Path: <dotis@mail-abuse.org>
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 707583A7593 for <asrg@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 10 Feb 2010 11:38:16 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.356
X-Spam-Level:
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 mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ZtYs8OdwxxHI for <asrg@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 10 Feb 2010 11:38:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: from harry.mail-abuse.org (harry.mail-abuse.org [168.61.5.27]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 634723A7461 for <asrg@irtf.org>; Wed, 10 Feb 2010 11:38:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sjc-office-nat-223.mail-abuse.org (gateway1.sjc.mail-abuse.org [168.61.5.81]) by harry.mail-abuse.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 495B0A94791 for <asrg@irtf.org>; Wed, 10 Feb 2010 19:39:26 +0000 (UTC)
Message-ID: <4B730B6E.4060305@mail-abuse.org>
Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2010 11:39:26 -0800
From: Douglas Otis <dotis@mail-abuse.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; en-US; rv:1.9.1.7) Gecko/20100111 Thunderbird/3.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: asrg@irtf.org
References: <20100208145917.47911.qmail@simone.iecc.com> <081803693F7489A63A1F70DB@lewes.staff.uscs.susx.ac.uk> <6.2.5.6.2.20100210102340.09454260@resistor.net> <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-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: 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 .gov.uk 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.

-Doug