Re: [Asrg] We don't need no stinkin IMAP or POP, was Adding a spam button to MUAs

Michael Thomas <mike@mtcc.com> Sat, 06 February 2010 19:10 UTC

Return-Path: <mike@mtcc.com>
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 71C273A70FE for <asrg@core3.amsl.com>; Sat, 6 Feb 2010 11:10:07 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.443
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.443 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, SUBJECT_FUZZY_TION=0.156]
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 JrEy4gbpLyUH for <asrg@core3.amsl.com>; Sat, 6 Feb 2010 11:10:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mtcc.com (mtcc.com [64.142.29.208]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BCA0E28C125 for <asrg@irtf.org>; Sat, 6 Feb 2010 11:10:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: from piolinux.mtcc.com (206-104-215-159.volcano.net [206.104.215.159] (may be forged)) (authenticated bits=0) by mtcc.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id o16JAxij010027 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for <asrg@irtf.org>; Sat, 6 Feb 2010 11:11:00 -0800
Message-ID: <4B6DBEC2.7010306@mtcc.com>
Date: Sat, 06 Feb 2010 11:10:58 -0800
From: Michael Thomas <mike@mtcc.com>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.14 (X11/20080501)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF <asrg@irtf.org>
References: <20100206062322.5553.qmail@simone.iecc.com>
In-Reply-To: <20100206062322.5553.qmail@simone.iecc.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=1049; t=1265483461; x=1266347461; c=relaxed/simple; s=thundersaddle.kirkwood; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=mtcc.com; i=mike@mtcc.com; z=From:=20Michael=20Thomas=20<mike@mtcc.com> |Subject:=20Re=3A=20[Asrg]=20We=20don't=20need=20no=20stink in=20IMAP=20or=20POP,=09was=20Adding=20a=20spam=0A=20button= 20to=20MUAs |Sender:=20 |To:=20Anti-Spam=20Research=20Group=20-=20IRTF=20<asrg@irtf .org> |Content-Type:=20text/plain=3B=20charset=3DISO-8859-1=3B=20 format=3Dflowed |Content-Transfer-Encoding:=207bit |MIME-Version:=201.0; bh=sDtr45qN1jXeUmZLv9zitz+D8GcQLqFEYbHmlB3fYxQ=; b=aMadHAQtvNPhgp4dwFh08Lob6+qZaRbUo0hNrgpLjepGCDwdb9d+GN6smH yGMzaGq4LNRKrzNbiY3BOjMmLTvxKCdx6ZEMFOSCHIEV4y/iHi1Lpor5kIQq S5wjExirB7unBRF7cSiEs0udWvBkCEkAH77qvCAjCO9GDBpmGHQj4=;
Authentication-Results: ; v=0.1; dkim=pass header.i=mike@mtcc.com ( sig from mtcc.com/thundersaddle.kirkwood verified; ); dkim-asp=pass header.From=mike@mtcc.com
Subject: Re: [Asrg] We don't need no stinkin IMAP or POP, was Adding a spam button to MUAs
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: Sat, 06 Feb 2010 19:10:07 -0000

John Levine wrote:
>
>>> I don't see any a priori reason to expect MUAs to be any worse at
>>> looking up SRV than looking up TXT.
>>>       
>> What about:  TXT is older and pervasive?
>>     
>
> SRV has been around for 15 years, and it's intended for telling you
> where a domain provides a particular service, which is what we're
> doing here.  Is there DNS software we care about that can support TXT
> with a funny name but not SRV?
>   

I think that the dkim/spf experience is that anything beyond A and CNAME 
causes
some dns providers out there to fail. Text does have the advantage that 
more providers
are supporting it because of dkim/spf. I don't think that srv has the 
same penetration and/or
use.... which is a pity because srv records are actually pretty nice in 
theory.

I'm not sure that it's an exact fit in any case with SRV, so you'd have 
to hack SRV just
like you'd have to hack TEXT records to fit the exact semantics, so it's 
sort of six of
one half dozen of the other on that front.

Mike