Re: [Asrg] VPNs vs consent

Rich Kulawiec <rsk@gsp.org> Mon, 29 June 2009 22:27 UTC

Return-Path: <rsk@gsp.org>
X-Original-To: asrg@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: asrg@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D1F113A6DD1 for <asrg@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 29 Jun 2009 15:27:19 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.509
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.509 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.090, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 5tffkxbfzPnd for <asrg@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 29 Jun 2009 15:27:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from taos.firemountain.net (taos.firemountain.net [207.114.3.54]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E8C513A6B64 for <asrg@irtf.org>; Mon, 29 Jun 2009 15:27:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from squonk.gsp.org (bltmd-207.114.17.162.dsl.charm.net [207.114.17.162]) by taos.firemountain.net (8.14.1/8.14.1) with ESMTP id n5TMRbVi023781 for <asrg@irtf.org>; Mon, 29 Jun 2009 18:27:38 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from avatar.gsp.org (avatar.gsp.org [192.168.0.11]) by squonk.gsp.org (8.14.1/8.14.1) with ESMTP id n5TMMiSW008581 for <asrg@irtf.org>; Mon, 29 Jun 2009 18:22:44 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from avatar.gsp.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by avatar.gsp.org (8.14.3/8.14.3/Debian-4) with ESMTP id n5TMRWgc029394 for <asrg@irtf.org>; Mon, 29 Jun 2009 18:27:32 -0400
Received: (from rsk@localhost) by avatar.gsp.org (8.14.3/8.14.3/Submit) id n5TMRW1u029393 for asrg@irtf.org; Mon, 29 Jun 2009 18:27:32 -0400
Date: Mon, 29 Jun 2009 18:27:32 -0400
From: Rich Kulawiec <rsk@gsp.org>
To: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF <asrg@irtf.org>
Message-ID: <20090629222732.GC23581@gsp.org>
References: <20090623213728.1825.qmail@simone.iecc.com> <4A41D773.50508@telmon.org> <4A41E506.2010106@mines-paristech.fr> <20090624160052.B5DC62428A@panix5.panix.com> <4A426B9D.7090901@mines-paristech.fr> <4A43618A.6000205@tana.it> <4A437393.3060105@mines-paristech.fr> <20090629113156.GA32258@gsp.org> <4A48BDAC.1060602@telmon.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <4A48BDAC.1060602@telmon.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17)
Subject: Re: [Asrg] VPNs vs consent
X-BeenThere: asrg@irtf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
Reply-To: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF <asrg@irtf.org>
List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF <asrg.irtf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg>, <mailto:asrg-request@irtf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.irtf.org/mail-archive/web/asrg>
List-Post: <mailto:asrg@irtf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:asrg-request@irtf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg>, <mailto:asrg-request@irtf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 29 Jun 2009 22:27:19 -0000

On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 03:12:12PM +0200, Claudio Telmon wrote:
> consent-enabled anyway. Addresses like "abuse" or "postmaster" are meant
> to be contacted by anybody that needs it, right? The same for the
> official contact addresses of companies.

In some cases, yes: certainly "abuse" is a role address that should be
reachable by everyone.  But for a counterexample, the "-request" and
"-owner" addresses corresponding to various mailing lists don't need
to be.  (Neither do some mailing list addresses.)  It's turned out to
be rather complicated in practice to figure out what policies each
role address should use, doubly so when there are sharply differing
opinions among the people sharing those addresses.  I can't claim to
have any "good" answers to this, only "adequate" ones.

---Rsk