Re: [Asrg] What can we expect MUAs to do?

"Chris Lewis" <clewis@nortel.com> Mon, 08 February 2010 18:45 UTC

Return-Path: <CLEWIS@nortel.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 72A8028C0F5 for <asrg@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 8 Feb 2010 10:45:45 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.533
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.533 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.066, 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 PNnET9f33N2B for <asrg@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 8 Feb 2010 10:45:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: from zrtps0kp.nortel.com (zrtps0kp.nortel.com [47.140.192.56]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EA72A28C170 for <asrg@irtf.org>; Mon, 8 Feb 2010 10:45:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: from zrtphxs1.corp.nortel.com (casmtp.ca.nortel.com [47.140.202.46]) by zrtps0kp.nortel.com (Switch-2.2.6/Switch-2.2.0) with ESMTP id o18Ikd605736 for <asrg@irtf.org>; Mon, 8 Feb 2010 18:46:39 GMT
Received: from zrtphx5h0.corp.nortel.com ([47.140.202.65]) by zrtphxs1.corp.nortel.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Mon, 8 Feb 2010 13:46:38 -0500
Received: from [47.130.64.86] (47.130.64.86) by zrtphx5h0.corp.nortel.com (47.140.202.65) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.1.340.0; Mon, 8 Feb 2010 13:46:37 -0500
Message-ID: <4B705BFB.1080606@nortel.com>
Date: Mon, 8 Feb 2010 13:46:19 -0500
From: "Chris Lewis" <clewis@nortel.com>
Organization: Nortel
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.8.1.23) Gecko/20090812 Lightning/0.9 Thunderbird/2.0.0.23 Mnenhy/0.7.6.666
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF <asrg@irtf.org>
References: <20100208060837.17094.qmail@simone.iecc.com> <E944E4B3-F853-46A2-A9A8-39267D8F0B6E@blighty.com> <201002081753.MAA08101@Sparkle.Rodents-Montreal.ORG> <C98C919F-98FA-4D32-9CE9-CC26C536273F@blighty.com>
In-Reply-To: <C98C919F-98FA-4D32-9CE9-CC26C536273F@blighty.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 08 Feb 2010 18:46:38.0208 (UTC) FILETIME=[0BCC7800:01CAA8EF]
Subject: Re: [Asrg] What can we expect MUAs to do?
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 18:45:46 -0000

Steve Atkins wrote:

> While there are end user MUAs that are in reasonably widespread use
> that do not support POP3 or do not support IMAP or do not store
> mail messages locally  I don't believe there are any end user MUAs used by
> any relevant user demographic that do not support MIME to a reasonable
> extent.

And even if there were, I can't see it that difficult to encorporate a 
fixed template that contains a "fill in the blanks" ARF report wrapped 
in a fixed MIME template.  Possibly under a fixed encoding to side-step 
NLS issues.

IOW: not generalized MIME capability, just some hardcoded hack for abuse 
reports.