Re: [Asrg] We really don't need no stinkin IMAP or POP foram button to M

"John R Levine" <> Sat, 06 February 2010 20:37 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1E7DB3A6DE6 for <>; Sat, 6 Feb 2010 12:37:12 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -12.871
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-12.871 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=6.172, BAYES_00=-2.599, HABEAS_ACCREDITED_SOI=-4.3, RCVD_IN_BSP_TRUSTED=-4.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, SUBJECT_FUZZY_TION=0.156]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id c9Ajk+CjWRjb for <>; Sat, 6 Feb 2010 12:37:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id CBEFF3A6C8C for <>; Sat, 6 Feb 2010 12:37:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: (qmail 62311 invoked from network); 6 Feb 2010 20:38:05 -0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple;; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:content-type:user-agent:cleverness; s=k1002; bh=22T/juPBgttDtpcvQir1YdP20ku2UOmrWfwLNHuCRXI=; b=iV2lqQyFgJTS3bcBNSpRRk6jVyhN3aN5NIrbU7Dcl9zRrpOROyjig6xJRIQAjD5K+Uemyumz0lY5g5LADBf2fi0KTh+udaJINgCbpx+lZlouecrZpy3MeCFWt19HlvTkIzIhrckYHj91MRTaO1or9ZvrNkXRo50fdrv6ezjuSnk=
Received: (ofmipd with (DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA encrypted) SMTP; 6 Feb 2010 20:37:42 -0000
Date: 6 Feb 2010 15:38:04 -0500
Message-ID: <alpine.BSF.2.00.1002061524280.11458@simone.lan>
From: "John R Levine" <>
To: "Dave Crocker" <>
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (BSF 1167 2008-08-23)
Cleverness: None detected
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
Cc: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF <>
Subject: Re: [Asrg] We really don't need no stinkin IMAP or POP foram button to M
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 20:37:12 -0000

> You've postulated a particular, idiosynchratic operational environment with 
> thousands of administers.  There's nothing "wrong" with that environment, but 
> we need to be careful that we don't require that it's characteristics dictate 
> design requirements for everyone.

Of course.  But what I've been hearing in this discussion is way too much 
of "that environment isn't like mine, so it's too exotic to worry about." 
A large mail hosting company with thousands of POP and IMAP customers 
should be the ideal environment for an MUA spam button, particularly since 
they already have a button in their web mail.  If we come up with 
something that they can't use, we've failed.

> Basically, with an environment of the sort you describe, everything is 
> relatively more difficult.

That hasn't been my experience.  They make all sorts of changes, but they 
don't make changes that require every reseller to change the DNS for every 

> While it's fine to try to design something so that it's scaling 
> characteristics are /better/ than linear, but it's typically also acceptable 
> for it to be linear.

I really don't understand all the resistance to a header applied by the 
MDA.  Yes, this will require a one-time change to the MDA, but you get a 
much more solid system that doesn't fail in mysterious ways when people 
have legitimate mail setups that happen to differ from the one the 
designer anticipated.  It's not unlike the advantage of DKIM over SPF.

John Levine,, Taughannock Networks, Trumansburg NY
"I dropped the toothpaste", said Tom, crestfallenly.