Re: [Asrg] who has the message (was Re: Consensus Call - submission via posting (was Re: Iteration #3))

Ian Eiloart <iane@sussex.ac.uk> Tue, 09 February 2010 13:07 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 C1D593A7578 for <asrg@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 9 Feb 2010 05:07:48 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.583
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.583 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.016, BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 ZFbabjF57D8z for <asrg@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 9 Feb 2010 05:07:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sivits.uscs.susx.ac.uk (sivits.uscs.susx.ac.uk [139.184.14.88]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A53AF3A6A8A for <asrg@irtf.org>; Tue, 9 Feb 2010 05:07:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lewes.staff.uscs.susx.ac.uk ([139.184.135.133]:54098) by sivits.uscs.susx.ac.uk with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.64) (envelope-from <iane@sussex.ac.uk>) id KXKSJS-00014L-QY; Tue, 09 Feb 2010 13:09:28 +0000
Date: Tue, 09 Feb 2010 13:08:53 +0000
From: Ian Eiloart <iane@sussex.ac.uk>
Sender: iane@sussex.ac.uk
To: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF <asrg@irtf.org>, Dave CROCKER <dcrocker@bbiw.net>
Message-ID: <7B7FEFA5270744DD5A3BDD3B@lewes.staff.uscs.susx.ac.uk>
In-Reply-To: <201002082056.23128.ar-asrg@acrconsulting.co.uk>
References: <4B6C6D35.1050101@nortel.com> <201002081911.55443.ar-asrg@acrconsulting.co.uk> <4B706386.5080501@bbiw.net> <201002082056.23128.ar-asrg@acrconsulting.co.uk>
Originator-Info: login-token=Mulberry:01lp4Hz///dTTXC1sxAsQJE3pC/BYoKfnECwk=; 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] who has the message (was Re: Consensus Call - submission via posting (was Re: Iteration #3))
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: Tue, 09 Feb 2010 13:07:48 -0000

--On 8 February 2010 20:56:23 +0000 Andrew Richards 
<ar-asrg@acrconsulting.co.uk> wrote:

>
>>
>> That creates a massive barrier to adoption.  Huge implementation
>>  overhead.
>
> However TiS is implemented will require implementation work on the server-
> side, so I'm not sure that [2] is so different from [1] in this respect.
>

Well, the one huge difference is that an SMTP report [1] might be sent 
anywhere, and the mailstore operator may never see them.

A mailstore report [2] can only be sent to the mailstore operator - it's 
then the business of the operator to aggregate and act upon those reports, 
perhaps by forwarding some of them elsewhere.

So, one question that requires answering is "who's ultimately in control 
here: the operator or the user?"


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