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

Dave CROCKER <> Fri, 05 February 2010 20:48 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6DAF928C111 for <>; Fri, 5 Feb 2010 12:48:46 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.521
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 ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ZlUAeBK4ajGW for <>; Fri, 5 Feb 2010 12:48:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 83B483A68C6 for <>; Fri, 5 Feb 2010 12:48:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [] ( []) (authenticated bits=0) by (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: <>
Date: Fri, 05 Feb 2010 12:49:25 -0800
From: Dave CROCKER <>
Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv: Gecko/20100111 Thunderbird/3.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Chris Lewis <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
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
X-Virus-Status: Clean
X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.0 ( []); Fri, 05 Feb 2010 12:49:37 -0800 (PST)
Cc: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF <>
Subject: Re: [Asrg] MUA/Operator reporting address (was Re: Adding a spam button to MUAs)
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
Reply-To: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF <>
List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-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. and may have
> entirely separate infrastructures even if you could derive ""
> from "". 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 

In that case, this should be a TXT record.



   Dave Crocker
   Brandenburg InternetWorking