Re: [Asrg] MUA/Operator reporting address (was Re: Adding a spam button to MUAs)

Dave CROCKER <dcrocker@bbiw.net> Fri, 05 February 2010 20:48 UTC

Return-Path: <dcrocker@bbiw.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 6DAF928C111 for <asrg@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 5 Feb 2010 12:48:46 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.521
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.521 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.078, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, 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 ZlUAeBK4ajGW for <asrg@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 5 Feb 2010 12:48:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sbh17.songbird.com (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.17]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 83B483A68C6 for <asrg@irtf.org>; Fri, 5 Feb 2010 12:48:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.1.43] (adsl-68-122-70-87.dsl.pltn13.pacbell.net [68.122.70.87]) (authenticated bits=0) by sbh17.songbird.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id o15KnVCq024339 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Fri, 5 Feb 2010 12:49:36 -0800
Message-ID: <4B6C8455.1090304@bbiw.net>
Date: Fri, 05 Feb 2010 12:49:25 -0800
From: Dave CROCKER <dcrocker@bbiw.net>
Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.1.7) Gecko/20100111 Thunderbird/3.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Chris Lewis <clewis@nortel.com>
References: <20100205151049.85259.qmail@simone.iecc.com> <Pine.GSO.4.64.1002051011310.28969@nber6.nber.org> <4B6C653C.7060807@nortel.com> <F20D7208-2839-4B53-ADC9-471D11880F70@blighty.com> <4B6C6E56.5010802@nortel.com> <9B9E89BC-32B9-41D2-B1EA-AA5C78FFBAFE@blighty.com> <4B6C7925.2090704@nortel.com> <4B6C7ED7.7020302@dcrocker.net> <4B6C8206.6060000@nortel.com>
In-Reply-To: <4B6C8206.6060000@nortel.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV 0.92/10361/Fri Feb 5 08:44:47 2010 on sbh17.songbird.com
X-Virus-Status: Clean
X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.0 (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.17]); Fri, 05 Feb 2010 12:49:37 -0800 (PST)
Cc: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF <asrg@irtf.org>
Subject: Re: [Asrg] MUA/Operator reporting address (was Re: 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: Fri, 05 Feb 2010 20:48:46 -0000

On 2/5/2010 12:39 PM, Chris Lewis wrote:
>> 2. Sub-domain
...
>> The address to be used is really an 'attribute' of the main domain,
>> and the underscore convention has developed as a way of defining
>> additional attributes for a domain name. In addition, the naming
>> convention does not run the risk of colliding with an existing use of
>> sub-domains.
>
> Problem with main domain is trying to figure out what it is, and it may
> not be the registered name. east.sun.com and west.sun.com may have
> entirely separate infrastructures even if you could derive "sun.com"
> from "blat.for.be.sun.com". So, it should at worst, be related to the
> naming of the infrastructure you actually use.

Sorry for being confusing.  I didn't mean to invoke the long-standing issue of 
the 'core' domain for an organization.

I merely meant the domain name minus its 'attribute' qualifier.  For the 
proposal you guys are making, that would be /all/ of the domain name of the 
incoming host.


>> Just to check: The choice between using an A or an MX is an
>> optimization, rather than strategic, yes? That is, either is
>> sufficient to the task, so a debate is about better?
>
> There are some specific technical advantages to an A for existance
> (enable TiS button), and MX for routing (where submission server sends
> it). Doing it that way around minimizes extra work, eg: many MUAs might
> not _have_ MX lookup code, but you know they have to have A lookup, so
> "A" is more convenient for what the MUA needs to do (light up the TiS
> button). The MX makes MTA routing work perfectly sanely. The A record
> doesn't even have to point at anything useful, because the MUA doesn't
> have to go there (and may not be able to), just exist.

I missed the fact that this was merely a flag and that the IP Address wasn't 
relevant.

In that case, this should be a TXT record.

d/

-- 

   Dave Crocker
   Brandenburg InternetWorking
   bbiw.net