Re: [Asrg] VPNs vs consent

Claudio Telmon <claudio@telmon.org> Wed, 01 July 2009 16:50 UTC

Return-Path: <claudio@telmon.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 EB09628C58D for <asrg@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 1 Jul 2009 09:50:11 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.501
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.501 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.218, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_IT=0.635, HOST_EQ_IT=1.245]
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 cOalSrbvy3P8 for <asrg@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 1 Jul 2009 09:50:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from slim-2c.inet.it (slim-2c.inet.it [213.92.5.123]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 79CA128C562 for <asrg@irtf.org>; Wed, 1 Jul 2009 09:48:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from 88-149-250-62.dynamic.ngi.it ([::ffff:88.149.250.62]) by slim-2c.inet.it via I-SMTP-5.6.0-560 id ::ffff:88.149.250.62+FnHsimNSJv2; Wed, 01 Jul 2009 18:48:05 +0200
Message-ID: <4A4B9345.8060705@telmon.org>
Date: Wed, 01 Jul 2009 18:48:05 +0200
From: Claudio Telmon <claudio@telmon.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.8.1.21) Gecko/20090318 Lightning/0.8 Thunderbird/2.0.0.21 Mnenhy/0.7.6.666
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> <4A437393.3060105@mines-paristech.fr> <212.234.174.167.1726486840.1245941890@webmail.inet.it> <4A439639.9090106@mines-paristech.fr> <4A4A879D.80008@telmon.org> <4A4B76C8.3080602@mines-paristech.fr> <4A4B8D9F.9000000@telmon.org> <4A4B8FA9.3080905@mines-paristech.fr>
In-Reply-To: <4A4B8FA9.3080905@mines-paristech.fr>
X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [Asrg] VPNs vs consent
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, 01 Jul 2009 16:50:12 -0000

Jose-Marcio Martins da Cruz wrote:

> This means defining some new protocol between the MTA and MUAs to push
> these tokens ???
> 

Yes, this is a critical part of the framework since the beginning :)


> Don't know exactly what/how you're intending with this, but the more
> complicated you imagine things, the less probable is it to be widely
> accepted.
> 

I know. However, this is the part of the framework that I see as least
critical in terms of acceptance. Both the MUA and the MTA will need some
add-on/patch/whatever in order to implement the protocol, so this part
of the framework will come "with the patch".
While I have a couple of ideas on how this could be accomplished, the
MTA token database management issue is one of the two I'm still looking
for comments, the other being whether it is true that spam in "small
text messages" would be easier/lighter to deal with by antispam tools.

-- 

Claudio Telmon
claudio@telmon.org
http://www.telmon.org