Re: [Asrg] Adding a spam button to MUAs

Ian Eiloart <iane@sussex.ac.uk> Mon, 08 February 2010 14:37 UTC

Return-Path: <iane@sussex.ac.uk>
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 65DE728B23E for <asrg@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 8 Feb 2010 06:37:05 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.485
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.485 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.958, BAYES_00=-2.599, GB_I_LETTER=-2, 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 3MJx3zvjnnIW for <asrg@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 8 Feb 2010 06:37:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lynndie.uscs.susx.ac.uk (lynndie.uscs.susx.ac.uk [139.184.14.87]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3706B3A73E3 for <asrg@irtf.org>; Mon, 8 Feb 2010 06:37:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lewes.staff.uscs.susx.ac.uk ([139.184.135.133]:58467) by lynndie.uscs.susx.ac.uk with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.64) (envelope-from <iane@sussex.ac.uk>) id KXJ1ZI-000CSH-36 for asrg@irtf.org; Mon, 08 Feb 2010 14:38:06 +0000
Date: Mon, 08 Feb 2010 14:38:05 +0000
From: Ian Eiloart <iane@sussex.ac.uk>
Sender: iane@sussex.ac.uk
To: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF <asrg@irtf.org>
Message-ID: <66310E6D119AA0CAB4E414BA@lewes.staff.uscs.susx.ac.uk>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.4.64.1002080735160.17361@nber6.nber.org>
References: <20100205154655.94051.qmail@simone.iecc.com> <Pine.GSO.4.64.1002051048210.4152@nber6.nber.org> <86E6B4F578AB51F17FC7A544@lewes.staff.uscs.susx.ac.uk> <Pine.GSO.4.64.1002080735160.17361@nber6.nber.org>
Originator-Info: login-token=Mulberry:012vnfsENaTRUbZjMSRh9NblIjQHEACj0fT2Q=; token_authority=support@its.sussex.ac.uk
X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Mac OS X)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
X-Sussex: true
X-Sussex-transport: remote_smtp
Subject: Re: [Asrg] 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: Mon, 08 Feb 2010 14:37:05 -0000

--On 8 February 2010 07:49:26 -0500 Daniel Feenberg <feenberg@nber.org> 
wrote:

>
>
> On Mon, 8 Feb 2010, Ian Eiloart wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> --On 5 February 2010 10:52:51 -0500 Daniel Feenberg <feenberg@nber.org>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, 5 Feb 2010, John Levine wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> This is just a general argument against all role accounts, including
>>> postmaster, abuse, webmaster, etc. It doesn't balance the costs and
>>> benefits, just notes a possible cost as though that was sufficient to
>>> dismiss it.
>>
>> No, the argument is nothing to do with the left hand side of the
>> address,  it's to do with the right hand side of the address.
>> "imap.iecc.com" isn't an  email domain, but it might be one day.
>> "imap.sussex.ac.uk" is not an email  domain, and it never will be.
>>
>> In the case where the imap server host name does happen to be an email
>> domain, there's a potential name space conflict. ARF@... may well
>> already be
>
> "Cnflict, ARF@" is the left hand side of the address. If imap.iecc.com
> becomes an email address, then it would be a mistake to assign a user the
> username of "arf".

Yes, you're confusing the two cases. Either the domain is already an email 
domain (in which case a conflict is possible), or it isn't (in which case 
you're asking for creation of an email domain merely to deliver abuse 
reports). That then becomes a whole new domain without reputation which 
spammers can abuse.

> If a role account is assigned to arf@poporimapserver.example.com then it
> is a problem if that address is already assigned to a user. It isn't a
> problem with no solution, though. Simply make sure that the RHS of the
> address is different from the already assigned address. This is almost
> always going to be the case for large providers, since machines for pop
> and imap service are distinct from email domain names. If they do not, it
> is simple enough to arrange DNS to make that happen, without changing any
> hardware.
>
> Perhaps another character string would lessen the objection on this
> point. The role account could be "arf-submission", although the
> anti-English crowd will complain. There is room for creativity.
>
> Note that when I say "pop_or_imap" it doesn't really have to be
> restricted to those protocols. The MUA can use the hostname for the
> system providing incoming mail, without caring what protocol is actually
> used, nor is there any need for the letters "pop" or "imap" to be requed
> to be in the name. The TO: address ued for the ARF is simply the role
> account on the system providing mail, that will use it to tune content or
> other spam filters.
>
>
> Daniel Feenberg
> _______________________________________________
> Asrg mailing list
> Asrg@irtf.org
> http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg



-- 
Ian Eiloart
IT Services, University of Sussex
01273-873148 x3148
For new support requests, see http://www.sussex.ac.uk/its/help/