Re: [Asrg] A Vouch By Feedback proposal

"J.D. Falk" <> Tue, 07 July 2009 20:13 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id B7B543A6ED6 for <>; Tue, 7 Jul 2009 13:13:55 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.485
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.485 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.114, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id pWe+15LRoqah for <>; Tue, 7 Jul 2009 13:13:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id DF1113A6EAE for <>; Tue, 7 Jul 2009 13:13:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rpco-jdmacbook.rpcorp.local ( []) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.14.3/8.14.3/Debian-5) with ESMTP id n67KDED1017522 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT) for <>; Tue, 7 Jul 2009 14:13:16 -0600
X-DKIM: Sendmail DKIM Filter v2.6.0 n67KDED1017522
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple;; s=satori; t=1246997596; bh=JsKPeSqOz2HAwnyWQMyTw93S4GUEHte7xnNL+FOn Rdw=; h=Message-ID:Date:From:MIME-Version:To:Subject:References: In-Reply-To:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=JlRMjeb9UaMh cQbyQ0i22cDP8/7DbUwQb0ug3G27yZVY+Y81135m8uWZz7WqLTUc/9MJLIFSDqnzYrI TT+CSsrGPzwBAJSLSkCe7BDS6nMX+Z7zZCaI8ykadhZG3GHpUTTHnNxI1o61oO0xFN2 meC0VRgJnzB5/PAfCZePPeMTQ=
Message-ID: <>
Date: Tue, 07 Jul 2009 14:13:09 -0600
From: "J.D. Falk" <>
User-Agent: Postbox 1.0b12 (Macintosh/2009051120)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [Asrg] A Vouch By Feedback proposal
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: Tue, 07 Jul 2009 20:13:55 -0000

Alessandro Vesely wrote:

> Vouch By Feedback could be a useful modification of the Vouch By
> Reference standard, if it didn't break its installed base.

What installed base?

> VBF adds a DNS record pointing from the vouched domain to the vouching
> server email address. It could be an RP RR type, where the address is
> meant to receive the message/feedback-report (AFR) complaints. Web
> is-spam buttons direct reports to the ESP, who should forward them to
> any sender's vouching service. Clients who implement FBLs might send
> them to the relevant voucher directly.

Variations of this theme have been discussed dozens of times, always trying 
to piggyback on some other technology: SPF (which doesn't make sense), DKIM 
(which almost makes sense), et cetera.

The problem, unfortunately, is that the use cases are unclear.  I'd 
recommend starting by defining those cases -- not merely "I want to send 
complaints about spam" or "I want to receive complaints so my mail doesn't 
get blocked," but every possible permutation, end-to-end.

It could make for an interesting research project.

 > Vouchers, in turn, shall forward
> reports to the accountable originating ESP. The latter shall ban guilty
> users from sending for an amount of time proportional to the number of
> complaints. If the voucher sees complaints against users who should have
> been banned from sending, it shall suspend its vouching service for the
> relevant sender.

Here you're getting out of the technology, and into dictating behavior.  I 
wouldn't be surprised if the agreements between message sender, voucher, and 
message receiver end up looking something like what you describe, but the 
technology should be agnostic and let those three parties make any agreement 
they feel is appropriate for their individual situations.

J.D. Falk
Return Path Inc