Re: [Asrg] MX, was Adding a spam button to MUAs

SM <sm@resistor.net> Wed, 10 February 2010 18:34 UTC

Return-Path: <sm@resistor.net>
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 8BFE328C147 for <asrg@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 10 Feb 2010 10:34:05 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.354
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.354 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.089, BAYES_00=-2.599, SUBJECT_FUZZY_TION=0.156]
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 p2SFgaR5LHiZ for <asrg@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 10 Feb 2010 10:34:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ns1.qubic.net (ns1.qubic.net [208.69.177.116]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 97A723A6F67 for <asrg@irtf.org>; Wed, 10 Feb 2010 10:34:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: from SUBMAN.resistor.net ([10.0.0.1]) (authenticated bits=0) by ns1.qubic.net (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id o1AIZ2c0007674 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for <asrg@irtf.org>; Wed, 10 Feb 2010 10:35:11 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=resistor.net; s=mail; t=1265826914; x=1265913314; bh=VXHkgPNrRt75yAeyNGqjRfvhJL3dlwbVps2rCIsQqoo=; h=Message-Id:Date:To:From:Subject:In-Reply-To:References: Mime-Version:Content-Type:Cc; b=KeK4+8gXqiUUMpStTBsRQ6ANuvPWKTBO+dbbnOo4oMUDC9KzwQKr5xHe1xQlPfrmY SXtGCDVs/T6cmJSj6zjZE2soxqkgxyg805i/ol54Oeohjr198XNcSd7sb1C1iObYpB hUG1rHUjrshP98XkLmqjTokHOwotNz3BUf3avMEg=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; s=mail; d=resistor.net; c=simple; q=dns; b=p/vtSMhcvJ41P/47ggYBPzW05q/v3m9QzbwkB8xAdhjo85S6WaLPHCWVjtQ2dVadi lWGRkFB/t/ZqSBFMr24YXz6odDujHx5+Gmy2skcE2kQnQZdHhbvSsTFlFMn6449RW7N CY1hPg9NaOYCR4Fn3kETiWayFXlcyxnN8qhNG3Q=
Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20100210102340.09454260@resistor.net>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6
Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2010 10:34:50 -0800
To: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF <asrg@irtf.org>
From: SM <sm@resistor.net>
In-Reply-To: <081803693F7489A63A1F70DB@lewes.staff.uscs.susx.ac.uk>
References: <20100208145917.47911.qmail@simone.iecc.com> <081803693F7489A63A1F70DB@lewes.staff.uscs.susx.ac.uk>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
Subject: Re: [Asrg] MX, was Adding a spam button to MUAs
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, 10 Feb 2010 18:34:05 -0000

Hi Ian,
At 04:00 09-02-10, Ian Eiloart wrote:
>Do you think a political campaign that resulted in - say - all UK 
>educational establishments, or all .gov.uk domains (or both) 
>implementing such a rule would change their minds? What if Google 
>also implemented the rule.

I gather that these fine UK educational establishments have read the 
specifications and the discussions leading to it.

BTW, are you suggesting that Internet Standards should be determined 
by what Google does?

Regards,
-sm