Re: [Asrg] Adding a spam button to MUAs

der Mouse <mouse@Rodents-Montreal.ORG> Sat, 06 February 2010 02:03 UTC

Return-Path: <mouse@Sparkle.Rodents-Montreal.ORG>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 262503A6FCB for <>; Fri, 5 Feb 2010 18:03:00 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -9.367
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.367 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.465, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_MISMATCH_ORG=0.611, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, SUBJECT_FUZZY_TION=0.156]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id nkElouqh6bBz for <>; Fri, 5 Feb 2010 18:02:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: from Sparkle.Rodents-Montreal.ORG (Sparkle.Rodents-Montreal.ORG []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0C5EF3A689F for <>; Fri, 5 Feb 2010 18:02:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: (from mouse@localhost) by Sparkle.Rodents-Montreal.ORG (8.8.8/8.8.8) id VAA14172; Fri, 5 Feb 2010 21:03:51 -0500 (EST)
From: der Mouse <mouse@Rodents-Montreal.ORG>
Message-Id: <201002060203.VAA14172@Sparkle.Rodents-Montreal.ORG>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Erik-Conspiracy: There is no Conspiracy - and if there were I wouldn't be part of it anyway.
X-Message-Flag: Microsoft: the company who gave us the botnet zombies.
Date: Fri, 5 Feb 2010 20:48:10 -0500 (EST)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <>
Subject: Re: [Asrg] Adding a spam button to MUAs
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 02:03:00 -0000

> The right hand side of a SRV record is a hostname, not an email address.

> (Trivially worked around in at least two obvious ways).

I don't see any obvious ways, unless you really mean "node in the DNS
tree" rather than "hostname".  Am I missing something?  It seems to me
that 2782 specifies that the target really is a hostname, thus making
it impossible to shoehorn an email address in there without (a)
imposing artificial restrictions on its local-part and (b) creating
artificial address records that do not actually make sense...or
ignoring SRV's spec, in which case the case for using SRV strikes me as
significantly weaker.

Of course, this could be finessed by the spec behind this use
(abuse, arguably, in view of its deviations from the spec) of SRV.

> Also, support for looking up SRV records is even rarer than TXT or
> MX.

There's that.  But I can't really feel it's much of a barrier to anyone
who's gotten past the decision to implement anything even vaguely
TiSish in the first place.

/~\ The ASCII				  Mouse
\ / Ribbon Campaign
 X  Against HTML
/ \ Email!	     7D C8 61 52 5D E7 2D 39  4E F1 31 3E E8 B3 27 4B