Re: [Asrg] VPNs vs consent

Rich Kulawiec <rsk@gsp.org> Mon, 29 June 2009 11:31 UTC

Return-Path: <rsk@gsp.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 D1B1D3A6D7A for <asrg@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 29 Jun 2009 04:31:43 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.494
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.494 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.105, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
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 2ismVlMHbStc for <asrg@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 29 Jun 2009 04:31:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from taos.firemountain.net (taos.firemountain.net [207.114.3.54]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0EFFD3A6D2A for <asrg@irtf.org>; Mon, 29 Jun 2009 04:31:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from squonk.gsp.org (bltmd-207.114.17.162.dsl.charm.net [207.114.17.162]) by taos.firemountain.net (8.14.1/8.14.1) with ESMTP id n5TBW2Lr000377 for <asrg@irtf.org>; Mon, 29 Jun 2009 07:32:03 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from avatar.gsp.org (avatar.gsp.org [192.168.0.11]) by squonk.gsp.org (8.14.1/8.14.1) with ESMTP id n5TBR9P8029980 for <asrg@irtf.org>; Mon, 29 Jun 2009 07:27:09 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from avatar.gsp.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by avatar.gsp.org (8.14.3/8.14.3/Debian-4) with ESMTP id n5TBVuZS032625 for <asrg@irtf.org>; Mon, 29 Jun 2009 07:31:56 -0400
Received: (from rsk@localhost) by avatar.gsp.org (8.14.3/8.14.3/Submit) id n5TBVuCn032624 for asrg@irtf.org; Mon, 29 Jun 2009 07:31:56 -0400
Date: Mon, 29 Jun 2009 07:31:56 -0400
From: Rich Kulawiec <rsk@gsp.org>
To: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF <asrg@irtf.org>
Message-ID: <20090629113156.GA32258@gsp.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>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <4A437393.3060105@mines-paristech.fr>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17)
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 11:31:43 -0000

On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 02:54:43PM +0200, Jose-Marcio Martins da Cruz wrote:
> But also I have many **shared** identities. These identities correspond 
> to email addresses  (administrative or not) which resolve to many people. 
> I can hardly see some kind of management of *shared consent* for these 
> addresses.

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.

---Rsk