IETF Logo Mail Archive

RE: [Asrg] seeking comments on new RMX article

"Eric D. Williams" <eric@infobro.com> Tue, 06 May 2003 16:16 UTC

Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA27973 for <asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Tue, 6 May 2003 12:16:18 -0400 (EDT)
Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h46GOpc05429 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 6 May 2003 12:24:51 -0400
Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h46GOo805424 for <asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org>; Tue, 6 May 2003 12:24:50 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA27932; Tue, 6 May 2003 12:15:47 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19D58a-0000Jd-00; Tue, 06 May 2003 12:17:52 -0400
Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=www1.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19D58Z-0000Ja-00; Tue, 06 May 2003 12:17:51 -0400
Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h46GJP804910; Tue, 6 May 2003 12:19:25 -0400
Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h46G6M802901 for <asrg@optimus.ietf.org>; Tue, 6 May 2003 12:06:22 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA27084 for <asrg@ietf.org>; Tue, 6 May 2003 11:57:19 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19D4qi-00009g-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 06 May 2003 11:59:24 -0400
Received: from black.infobro.com ([63.71.25.39] helo=infobro.com) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19D4qh-00009O-01 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 06 May 2003 11:59:23 -0400
Received: from red (unverified [207.199.136.153]) by infobro.com (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.83) with SMTP id <B0002398927@infobro.com>; Tue, 06 May 2003 11:59:06 -0400
Received: by localhost with Microsoft MAPI; Tue, 6 May 2003 11:59:13 -0400
Message-ID: <01C313C6.E92452B0.eric@infobro.com>
From: "Eric D. Williams" <eric@infobro.com>
To: 'Daniel Feenberg' <feenberg@nber.org>, Vernon Schryver <vjs@calcite.rhyolite.com>
Cc: "asrg@ietf.org" <asrg@ietf.org>
Subject: RE: [Asrg] seeking comments on new RMX article
Organization: Information Brokers, Inc.
X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet E-mail/MAPI - 8.0.0.4211
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org
Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12
Precedence: bulk
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg>, <mailto:asrg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF <asrg.ietf.org>
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>
List-Archive: <https://www1.ietf.org/pipermail/asrg/>
Date: Tue, 06 May 2003 11:30:16 -0400
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

On Monday, May 05, 2003 9:02 PM, Daniel Feenberg [SMTP:feenberg@nber.org] 
wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, 5 May 2003, Vernon Schryver wrote:
>
> >
> > What accountability is lacking but would be provided by RMX for the
> > unsolicited bulk email from Verisign, American Express, Roving Software,
> > Topica, and the rest of the Fortune 50,000 that would be our topic if
> > the "Bill Zhangs" were not so productive?  The Fortune 50,000 send
> > with unforged headers that point directly at themselves.
> >
>
> I think what is left unstated in this dispute is that the RMX proponents
> would like to discriminate among senders at a finer level than the IP
> address of the connecting host. They want to accept legitimate mail from
> spam-friendly connection IPs, and reject other mail. This would reduce the
> need for ISPs to "censor" their customer's incoming/outgoing mail, and the
> need for customers to find an ISP with a mail policy they can live with.

I don't follow that premise.  How does RMX lead to a '[desire] to accept mail 
from spam-friendly connection IPs, and reject other mail'?  How would the 
introduction of RMX affect my (recipient MTA) policy formulation in your 
example?

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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email