Re: [Asrg] request for review for a non FUSSP proposal

Alessandro Vesely <> Mon, 29 June 2009 14:46 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6C8993A6A08 for <>; Mon, 29 Jun 2009 07:46:44 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.495
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.495 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.224, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_IT=0.635, HOST_EQ_IT=1.245]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id rPSe1bsQdHXU for <>; Mon, 29 Jun 2009 07:46:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 838CE3A67B5 for <>; Mon, 29 Jun 2009 07:46:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] (pcale.tana []) (AUTH: CRAM-MD5, TLS: TLS1.0, 256bits, RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1) by with esmtp; Mon, 29 Jun 2009 16:46:38 +0200 id 00000000005DC030.000000004A48D3CE.00004620
Message-ID: <>
Date: Mon, 29 Jun 2009 16:46:37 +0200
From: Alessandro Vesely <>
User-Agent: Thunderbird (Windows/20090605)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF <>
References: <> <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [Asrg] request for review for a non FUSSP proposal
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: Mon, 29 Jun 2009 14:46:44 -0000

Claudio Telmon wrote:
> Alessandro Vesely wrote:
>> I think it may actually 
>> have more chances when explicitly targeted to guard children, rather 
>> than generically "non FUSSP".
> I considered to use terms like "protected mailboxes", but at the end I 
> didn't like it, since it describes an expected effect (protection) and 
> not what is actually done (enabling the framework). Also, while the 
> "children" case is a clear one, I think that many other classes of users 
> could benefit from this option. I only used the term FUSSP in the 
> message to this list :)

What about "adult-assisted mailboxes"? Besides the fact that you could 
adapt an MTA to do mixed enabled and non-enabled reception on the same 
email address, if the two addresses correspond to different persons, a 
child and a supervising adult, you don't have to. Targeting children 
does not necessarily imply that adults refrain to self assist 
themselves, if they like.

Having a clear case would help working out the specification details 
that are currently missing. (How much software is needed? What exactly 
should each piece of software do? Do both mailboxes have to be on the 
same host? And the database? Etc.) In addition, it may help reckoning 
a potential user base. Finally, anything that helps to protect the 
children may get the attention of specific organizations.