Re: [Asrg] Email service assumptions and making system-wide changes

Laird Breyer <laird@lbreyer.com> Thu, 19 January 2006 06:35 UTC

Received: from localhost.cnri.reston.va.us ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1EzTOJ-0004rM-50; Thu, 19 Jan 2006 01:35:27 -0500
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1EzTOD-0004qL-BV for asrg@megatron.ietf.org; Thu, 19 Jan 2006 01:35:21 -0500
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA23825 for <asrg@ietf.org>; Thu, 19 Jan 2006 01:33:55 -0500 (EST)
Received: from omta05ps.mx.bigpond.com ([144.140.83.195]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1EzTWf-0002Nr-6v for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 19 Jan 2006 01:44:07 -0500
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([60.226.77.129]) by omta05ps.mx.bigpond.com with ESMTP id <20060119063454.LULV14751.omta05ps.mx.bigpond.com@localhost.localdomain> for <asrg@ietf.org>; Thu, 19 Jan 2006 06:34:54 +0000
Received: from ender (ender.scoobynet [192.168.0.3]) by localhost.localdomain (Postfix) with ESMTP id 471F8C0 for <asrg@ietf.org>; Thu, 19 Jan 2006 16:42:06 +1000 (EST)
Received: by ender (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 661644DD8D; Thu, 19 Jan 2006 16:33:34 +1000 (EST)
Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2006 16:33:33 +1000
From: Laird Breyer <laird@lbreyer.com>
To: asrg@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Asrg] Email service assumptions and making system-wide changes
Message-ID: <20060119063333.GA2368@ender>
Mail-Followup-To: asrg@ietf.org
References: <17356.38171.951736.912706@world.std.com> <OFFE10648F.FD8AB2E7-ON802570FA.0035C93C-802570FA.0035EABB@slc.co.uk> <17358.53777.280181.751442@world.std.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <17358.53777.280181.751442@world.std.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.11
X-Spam-Score: 0.1 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 2409bba43e9c8d580670fda8b695204a
X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
Reply-To: laird@lbreyer.com
List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF <asrg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg>, <mailto:asrg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www1.ietf.org/pipermail/asrg>
List-Post: <mailto:asrg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:asrg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg>, <mailto:asrg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: asrg-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: asrg-bounces@ietf.org

On Jan 18 2006, Barry Shein wrote:
> 
> On January 18, 2006 at 09:48 Danny_Angus@slc.co.uk (Danny Angus) wrote:
>  > 
>  > 
>  > 
>  > > So by your reasoning we shouldn't have bothered to close the open
>  > > relays?
>  > 
>  > A truly effective solution to the real problem would not *require* that
>  > open relays be closed, it would involve a transaction between the sender
>  > and the recipient, not impose a constraint on the transport layer.
>  > 
> 
> In other words, it'd find some other way to achieve the same effect of
> closing open relays.

No, I think what Danny means is that an effective solution needs to be
end-to-end (RFC1958). Only the sender and recipient should be involved, the
intervening network should only transport bits.

I'm not sure an end-to-end censorship system is possible in an accept
and forward infrastructure such as email, but maybe there's some kind
of formal proof of that statement? I don't know.

-- 
Laird Breyer.

_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg