Re: [Asrg] VPNs vs consent

Claudio Telmon <claudio@telmon.org> Mon, 29 June 2009 13:52 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 1C35628C279 for <asrg@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 29 Jun 2009 06:52:05 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.483
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.483 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.236, 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 Gxk12DB97tbV for <asrg@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 29 Jun 2009 06:52:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from slim-4a.inet.it (slim-4a.inet.it [213.92.5.126]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A822C28C23D for <asrg@irtf.org>; Mon, 29 Jun 2009 06:52:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from 88-149-251-208.dynamic.ngi.it ([::ffff:88.149.251.208]) by slim-4a.inet.it via I-SMTP-5.6.0-560 id ::ffff:88.149.251.208+66HYyo62uL; Mon, 29 Jun 2009 15:12:14 +0200
Message-ID: <4A48BDAC.1060602@telmon.org>
Date: Mon, 29 Jun 2009 15:12:12 +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> <20090629113156.GA32258@gsp.org>
In-Reply-To: <20090629113156.GA32258@gsp.org>
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: Mon, 29 Jun 2009 13:52:05 -0000

Rich Kulawiec wrote:

> A brief check of my own procmail config indicates that I'm on over 500 of
> these -- the overwhelming majority of which are role addresses such as
> those specified in RFC 2142.  A secondary check indicates that about 3/4
> of those are shared with one or more other people, which means I'd have
> to work out some kind of "shared consent" for several hundred addresses.
> That's not feasible in a reasonable period of time, especially since
> neither the addresses nor the pool of people they're shared with are static.

Well, I suppose that most of those mailboxes shouldn't be
consent-enabled anyway. Addresses like "abuse" or "postmaster" are meant
to be contacted by anybody that needs it, right? The same for the
official contact addresses of companies.

-- 

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