Re: [Asrg] SMTP pull anyone?

Michael Thomas <mike@mtcc.com> Mon, 17 August 2009 16:35 UTC

Return-Path: <mike@mtcc.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 610CB28C26E for <asrg@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 17 Aug 2009 09:35:06 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 qRVpizv5O6sQ for <asrg@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 17 Aug 2009 09:35:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mtcc11.mtcc.com (mtcc11.mtcc.com [64.142.29.211]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1B4463A69F6 for <asrg@irtf.org>; Mon, 17 Aug 2009 09:34:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mtcc11.mtcc.com (mtcc11.mtcc.com [64.142.29.211]) (authenticated bits=0) by mtcc11.mtcc.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id n7HGYRBI013452 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for <asrg@irtf.org>; Mon, 17 Aug 2009 09:34:27 -0700
Message-ID: <4A898693.7030609@mtcc.com>
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2009 09:34:27 -0700
From: Michael Thomas <mike@mtcc.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686 (x86_64); en-US; rv:1.8.1.22) Gecko/20090605 Thunderbird/2.0.0.22 Mnenhy/0.7.5.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF <asrg@irtf.org>
References: <20090816222944.96264.qmail@simone.iecc.com>
In-Reply-To: <20090816222944.96264.qmail@simone.iecc.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [Asrg] SMTP pull anyone?
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, 17 Aug 2009 16:35:06 -0000

I don't see how push or pull fundamentally changes the spam
equation in any case. The problem wrt spam is the any-any nature
of who you receive communication from, not who initiates the
connection.

I can create a walled garden trivially with smtp just be rejecting
connections from people not on my whitelist. Likewise, anything that
is promiscuous with who it receives from better be prepared for
mail-transmitted diseases (MTD's). That's just the nature of opening
up. So SMTP itself isn't the problem, or more specifically fretting
about SMTP is nipping around the edges of 20 with the 80-20 rule.

Mike

On 08/16/2009 03:29 PM, John Levine wrote:
>>> SMTP is currently a push protocol and is initiated by the the
>>> sender, no controlling that fact.
>
>>> But it is possible to overcome the relay problems, IP spoofing and
>>> domain impersonation etc,
>
>>> by making the servers pull the mails.
>
>> US6192407
>
> Ah, right, the famous Tumbleweed patent.  Here's a better link
> with a readable version.
>
> http://www.google.com/patents?vid=USPAT6192407
>
> This patent covers the idea of putting a message on a web server and
> sending the recipient a URL to retrieve the message.  Tumbleweed
> enforces it very aggressively.  See the list of suits in their
> Wikipedia page.
>
> Were it not for the patent, I expect we'd have a lot of institutions
> setting up per-user password protected RSS or Atom feeds with
> statements and other messages, and sending you mail telling you to
> check your feed when there's something new.
>
> R's,
> John
> _______________________________________________
> Asrg mailing list
> Asrg@irtf.org
> http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg