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 06:22 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 7224F3A63D3 for <asrg@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 5 Feb 2010 22:22:32 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -19.052
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-19.052 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.009, BAYES_00=-2.599, HABEAS_ACCREDITED_SOI=-4.3, RCVD_IN_BSP_TRUSTED=-4.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, 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 yYKXsyKA17d6 for <asrg@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 5 Feb 2010 22:22:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: from gal.iecc.com (gal.iecc.com [208.31.42.53]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C941E3A62C1 for <asrg@irtf.org>; Fri, 5 Feb 2010 22:22:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: (qmail 75953 invoked from network); 6 Feb 2010 06:23:23 -0000
Received: from mail1.iecc.com (208.31.42.56) by mail1.iecc.com with QMQP; 6 Feb 2010 06:23:23 -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=F4VkkaNRQaixK2GpRqnEoqju/5P+ScOhFgIw/qpeYIE=; b=PrdVS8JYznN+2Z/11r5k3MZnQaNsiY/Asrm/Lc2M+TJZMX5ESrqabMfNgTAjHn20CPNOguIdQyojd4/Uzpe+BgIR3AreljnhD1BN+Elo06ocdy8FGJNjIFQW/f9LBK9K9gucmZv8IBjLxD2vAU5AtzcrD+m5MqyWs0dTn8NZID4=
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=F4VkkaNRQaixK2GpRqnEoqju/5P+ScOhFgIw/qpeYIE=; b=XvLYTtTz1WH1KWY4wT4o61VVbYinH6tCGFsDvZWJF8OsKSMsQJVSVh6KEY2KxSPpIcuqoa2UZJNfpwTI8KmwN97tehz7tzqyAQ5sKVTQ6mnn40/ULGyP79DRuA7EoJRZMXKKKKASj8WHcxpRf01rNuUMXVSQ6U6FMKyrSJG4IeA=
Date: 6 Feb 2010 06:23:22 -0000
Message-ID: <20100206062322.5553.qmail@simone.iecc.com>
From: John Levine <johnl@taugh.com>
To: asrg@irtf.org
In-Reply-To: <4B6D040F.2060302@dcrocker.net>
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 06:22:33 -0000

>>> I think the latest round of discussion has eliminated any interest in the
>>> message retrieval mechanism.
>>
>> Um, this discussion has been about keying the ARF report to the name
>> of the POP or IMAP server, remember?
>
>name of.

But if you pick up the mail using something other than POP or IMAP,
there's no server and no name.

> > I don't see any a priori reason to expect MUAs to be any worse at
> > looking up SRV than looking up TXT.
>
>What about:  TXT is older and pervasive?

SRV has been around for 15 years, and it's intended for telling you
where a domain provides a particular service, which is what we're
doing here.  Is there DNS software we care about that can support TXT
with a funny name but not SRV?

>Is there some reason this line of design debate is being based on
>theory rather than empirical knowledge?

I hope not.  If the age of the RR type is important, I would suggest
using HINFO, which was defined four years before TXT was.  If we agree
that's a silly distinction, why is TXT vs. HINFO silly, but SRV
vs. TXT is not?

R's,
John