Re: [Asrg] We don't need no stinkin IMAP or POP, was Adding a spam button to MUAs

John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> Sat, 06 February 2010 22:53 UTC

Return-Path: <johnl@iecc.com>
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 3F2E63A6B47 for <asrg@core3.amsl.com>; Sat, 6 Feb 2010 14:53:27 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -18.892
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-18.892 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.164, BAYES_00=-2.599, HABEAS_ACCREDITED_SOI=-4.3, RCVD_IN_BSP_TRUSTED=-4.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, SARE_MILLIONSOF=0.315, 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 umITzVfPGPCE for <asrg@core3.amsl.com>; Sat, 6 Feb 2010 14:53:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: from gal.iecc.com (gal.iecc.com [208.31.42.53]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BE4B53A6DCE for <asrg@irtf.org>; Sat, 6 Feb 2010 14:53:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: (qmail 15091 invoked from network); 6 Feb 2010 22:54:19 -0000
Received: from mail1.iecc.com (208.31.42.56) by mail1.iecc.com with QMQP; 6 Feb 2010 22:54:19 -0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=iecc.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:cc:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=k1002; olt=johnl@user.iecc.com; bh=TAU3L7iGatfhCuTY4RdJ3zf90ZW0CwHOFPeZca4jVe4=; b=PYswtxhBDKOn/IVjE6KRU/3gSj4i3JTHXjJsJj7VZmttHaR8f/GeJVJnixPOumithzUwDRCC8emXgHCF1N0WWIAfUCXbTY2GhlZr3oXiaxewN6yEzJuk78zxiQmufxrTlzL49ykGb/FzA5Ts1rQKxFsW4d1/BkMpmUH2pedtq2c=
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=taugh.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:cc:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=k1002; bh=TAU3L7iGatfhCuTY4RdJ3zf90ZW0CwHOFPeZca4jVe4=; b=pQnATXpfUd2eQZWNE4z3hfgFyeyqkFshUxP+SGtp9DM2KV32N5+UFWLMCBqNN7qCi6esMjkN2YM+TuOv3OElBx/tgO//wxa80vmzuqogzo/hb6t8lWVnmB6lOnyfN7TfX40I2pj5trC9Fmb9hl9pNq2gJXKz4jXsgDpnKtapOrk=
Date: 6 Feb 2010 22:54:18 -0000
Message-ID: <20100206225418.47505.qmail@simone.iecc.com>
From: John Levine <johnl@taugh.com>
To: asrg@irtf.org
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.4.64.1002061657050.19856@nber6.nber.org>
Organization:
Cc:
X-Headerized: yes
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [Asrg] We don't need no stinkin IMAP or POP, 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: Sat, 06 Feb 2010 22:53:27 -0000

>> This is a common way to set up a mail system for hosting services.  So
>> you tell me, which approach is "simpler"?

>1) If you have thousands of email domains, then perhaps they are generated
>    mechanically, and a small change of code would create thousands of MX
>    records.

Nope, they aren't.

>2) There is always the wildcard, at least in Bind, which would make it a
>    one line change.

Could you give an example?  Keep in mind that your wildcard needs to
cover subtrees of several thousand arbitrary domains whose names you
don't know.

>3) The existence of a handful of sites where implementation would be work
>    is hardly a reason to make additional works for millions of sites with
>    a single domain.

Could you provide pointers to data that show that a) most mail systems
handle a single domain, and b) there are millions of mail servers?  As
far as I know, neither of those are true.

>4) The resistance to adoption will come chiefly from MUA vendors.

Could you explain why that would be the case?  I believe the most
popular MUAs are Outlook, whatever Outlook Express is called these
days, and Thunderbird.  All have provisions for third party plugins,
so even if the vendors were opposed to providing a button (and I see
no reason to think they would be), that doesn't preclude providing
buttons anyway.

R's,
John