Re: [Asrg] seeking comments on new RMX article

Damian Gerow <damian@sentex.net> Tue, 06 May 2003 16:25 UTC

Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA28409 for <asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Tue, 6 May 2003 12:25:33 -0400 (EDT)
Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h46GY7V05903 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 6 May 2003 12:34:07 -0400
Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h46GY7805900 for <asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org>; Tue, 6 May 2003 12:34:07 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA28393; Tue, 6 May 2003 12:25:03 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19D5HY-0000Na-00; Tue, 06 May 2003 12:27:08 -0400
Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=www1.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19D5HY-0000NX-00; Tue, 06 May 2003 12:27:08 -0400
Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h46GJ5804828; Tue, 6 May 2003 12:19:05 -0400
Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h46GGq804463 for <asrg@optimus.ietf.org>; Tue, 6 May 2003 12:16:52 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA27469 for <asrg@ietf.org>; Tue, 6 May 2003 12:07:49 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19D50s-0000EE-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 06 May 2003 12:09:54 -0400
Received: from pyroxene.sentex.ca ([199.212.134.18]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19D50r-0000EB-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 06 May 2003 12:09:54 -0400
Received: from pegmatite.sentex.ca (pegmatite.sentex.ca [192.168.42.92]) by pyroxene.sentex.ca (8.12.9/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h46GA88C085482; Tue, 6 May 2003 12:10:08 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from damian@sentex.net)
Received: by pegmatite.sentex.ca (Postfix, from userid 1001) id C1E711708B; Tue, 6 May 2003 12:10:07 -0400 (EDT)
From: Damian Gerow <damian@sentex.net>
To: Dave Crocker <dcrocker@brandenburg.com>
Cc: asrg@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Asrg] seeking comments on new RMX article
Message-ID: <20030506161007.GG777@sentex.net>
Mail-Followup-To: Dave Crocker <dcrocker@brandenburg.com>, asrg@ietf.org
References: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0305051946590.11255-100000@tamale.caltech.edu> <200305060550.h465olHn011387@calcite.rhyolite.com> <2335175049.20030506075958@brandenburg.com> <20030506154247.GF777@sentex.net> <438348672.20030506085252@brandenburg.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <438348672.20030506085252@brandenburg.com>
X-GPG-Key-Id: 0xB841F142
X-GPG-Fingerprint: C7C1 E1D1 EC06 7C86 AF7C 57E6 173D 9CF6 B841 F142
X-Habeas-SWE-1: winter into spring
X-Habeas-SWE-2: brightly anticipated
X-Habeas-SWE-3: like Habeas SWE (tm)
X-Habeas-SWE-4: Copyright 2002 Habeas (tm)
X-Habeas-SWE-5: Sender Warranted Email (SWE) (tm). The sender of this
X-Habeas-SWE-6: email in exchange for a license for this Habeas
X-Habeas-SWE-7: warrant mark warrants that this is a Habeas Compliant
X-Habeas-SWE-8: Message (HCM) and not spam. Please report use of this
X-Habeas-SWE-9: mark in spam to <http://www.habeas.com/report/>.
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.4i
X-Virus-Scanned: By Sentex Communications (lava/20020517)
Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org
Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12
Precedence: bulk
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg>, <mailto:asrg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF <asrg.ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:asrg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:asrg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg>, <mailto:asrg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
List-Archive: <https://www1.ietf.org/pipermail/asrg/>
Date: Tue, 06 May 2003 12:10:07 -0400

Thus spake Dave Crocker (dhc@dcrocker.net) [06/05/03 11:57]:
> I used the word "conceptually".  Your response is mostly about details.

If by 'conceptually' you mean 'they both identify something', then I agree.

> From an architectural standpoing, both proposals seek to obtain a
> small bit of validation from the sending host, and then extend the
> semantics of that validation far beyond what is technically warranted.

My point was simply that comparing RMX to IDENT is not a valid comparison.
Akin to comparing a bicycle to a car.  Both are methods of transportation,
but similarities end there (and both have tires and both use energy and ...)

I have been watching this debate, and I have yet to see a solid explanation
as to why you believe usage of RMX goes far beyone what is technically
warranted.  The previous can't-send-hotmail-not-through-hotmail argument is
weak yet still valid, but I don't see what leaping assumptions I am making
if the sender does or doesn't have an RMX record.
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg