Re: [Asrg] C/R Interworking Framework

Scott Nelson <scott@spamwolf.com> Fri, 06 June 2003 17:20 UTC

Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA03149 for <asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Fri, 6 Jun 2003 13:20:27 -0400 (EDT)
Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h56HK2K11549 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 6 Jun 2003 13:20:02 -0400
Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h56HK2B11546 for <asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org>; Fri, 6 Jun 2003 13:20:02 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA03139; Fri, 6 Jun 2003 13:19:56 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19OKqq-0004Ly-00; Fri, 06 Jun 2003 13:18:04 -0400
Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=www1.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19OKqp-0004Lv-00; Fri, 06 Jun 2003 13:18:03 -0400
Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h56HEaB11253; Fri, 6 Jun 2003 13:14:36 -0400
Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h56H9NB11022 for <asrg@optimus.ietf.org>; Fri, 6 Jun 2003 13:09:23 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA02626 for <asrg@ietf.org>; Fri, 6 Jun 2003 13:09:18 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19OKgX-0004E4-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 06 Jun 2003 13:07:25 -0400
Received: from adsl-66-120-64-133.dsl.snfc21.pacbell.net ([66.120.64.133] helo=magic1.org) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19OKgV-0004Dw-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 06 Jun 2003 13:07:24 -0400
Message-Id: <aT5vaIe86J8qbrGQ402@x>
To: asrg@ietf.org
From: Scott Nelson <scott@spamwolf.com>
Subject: Re: [Asrg] C/R Interworking Framework
Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org
Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12
Precedence: bulk
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg>, <mailto:asrg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF <asrg.ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:asrg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:asrg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg>, <mailto:asrg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
List-Archive: <https://www1.ietf.org/pipermail/asrg/>
Date: Fri, 06 Jun 2003 10:09:11 -0700

At 03:22 PM 6/5/03 -0400, Kee Hinckley wrote:
>At 10:52 AM -0400 6/5/03, Yakov Shafranovich wrote:
>>The "FROM" field is the one that will get C/R checked, since that is 
>>the mailbox that sent the email. Additionally, the "MAIL FROM" 
>>addresses that is used in SMTP is not intended to this purpose, 
>>rather it indicates a mailbox to which errors should be sent to. It 
>>is perfectly legal and sometimes even recommended in RFC 2821 to use 
>><> for the MAIL FROM.
>
>Are you advocating that C/R systems send mail to the From: address 
>rather than MAIL FROM?  That strikes me as exceedingly wrong.  MAIL 
>FROM is for notification of delivery problems--and that's exactly 
>what C/R is.  Furthermore, we've seen on this list what happens when 
>a C/R system sends to From: instead of MAIL FROM--everyone who posts 
>to the list gets challenged by the person who forgot to whitelist the 
>mailing list.  This is the "On Vacation" message problem all over 
>again.
>

There are basically two choices;
Envelope from a.k.a. MAIL FROM, and 
Reply-To: (or From: if there's no Reply-To:)


If you view a challenge as a DSN then envelope from is the proper
choice.  I'd even go so far as to format the challenge as an
RFC 1894 compliant DSN.  (This has the interesting side effect
that challenging a mailing list is likely to unsubscribe you
automatically)  And like any DSN, I recommend including the 
message-id in the In-Reply-To: and Reference: headers.

If however, you view a challenge as a new message, 
then sending it to the Reply-To: (or From: if there is no Reply-To:)
is the more logical choice.

Personally I feel that challenges are DSNs, so envelope from
is the right choice, but I can see the "new message" 
point of view too.


Scott Nelson <scott@spamwolf.com>

_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg