Re: [Asrg] Adding a spam button to MUAs

Dave CROCKER <> Sat, 06 February 2010 01:05 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9C63C3A6834 for <>; Fri, 5 Feb 2010 17:05:41 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.512
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.512 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.069, 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 nUvM307xBJDU for <>; Fri, 5 Feb 2010 17:05:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9F97F3A681A for <>; Fri, 5 Feb 2010 17:05:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [] ( []) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id o1616R1q001888 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for <>; Fri, 5 Feb 2010 17:06:33 -0800
Message-ID: <>
Date: Fri, 05 Feb 2010 17:06:20 -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: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF <>
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 17:06:33 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Re: [Asrg] 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: Sat, 06 Feb 2010 01:05:41 -0000

On 2/5/2010 4:13 PM, John Levine wrote:
>> Fine with me. But you really should learn about MX records - they are
>> very useful and have been standardized for many years now.
> Thanks, we're familiar with them.  Perhaps you might want to
> familiarize yourself with section 5.1 of RFC 5321 which makes it quite
> clear that MX records are still optional, and any host with an A or
> AAAA record might be a mail domain.
> This is what I meant about overloading names,

Overloading indeed.

One of the benefits of the suggestion to use the regular posting mechanism is 
that it means that the MUA already knows how to post a message.  It does not 
need the IP Address of a server to post two.

Hence, there are only two possible pieces of information the MUA needs:

      1.  Is the function supported by the operator?

      2.  What address should be used for sending problem messages to, if we 
want to let operators choose their own address; this isn't needed at all if 
there is a global standard.

#1 is one bit of information.  There is no need for an A or MX, nevermind no 
need to debate between them.

#2 is an email address, which neither A nor MX support.

The design right choice, here is a TXT record, under an underscore subdomain.


   Dave Crocker
   Brandenburg InternetWorking