Re: [Asrg] [ASRG] SMTP pull anyone?

John Levine <> Mon, 17 August 2009 13:04 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5ADD63A6ED7 for <>; Mon, 17 Aug 2009 06:04:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -18.596
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-18.596 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.604, BAYES_00=-2.599, HABEAS_ACCREDITED_SOI=-4.3, RCVD_IN_BSP_TRUSTED=-4.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id awRzW+4Ntgz5 for <>; Mon, 17 Aug 2009 06:04:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 73A6A3A6EFB for <>; Mon, 17 Aug 2009 06:03:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 15340 invoked from network); 17 Aug 2009 13:03:57 -0000
Received: from ( by with QMQP; 17 Aug 2009 13:03:57 -0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple;; h=date:message-id:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:cc:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=k0908;; bh=nyTAPL0kA2LBIAtEgS9qQOdlwtfHoVMfq5AABWMMQoY=; b=dhDVUaGriRiO7OMOMZafAPTGbR4JaIBlNN2sG5zGcnnYNQ6munzm8eRthp4TD4M3cuVT5cX2UdE0mPgn06hVIQv6YogkZtg/+xcZSAgmvubzslVplrQp6sx6olFMAjuTp4dadP2niiBMU1C4YvEhk3lPQciqG1uYfBADPFx+Fhs=
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple;; h=date:message-id:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:cc:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=k0908; bh=nyTAPL0kA2LBIAtEgS9qQOdlwtfHoVMfq5AABWMMQoY=; b=PhNelazJ0WViaFRaiTQ8H3pMs6ZgK4GsPXNRaiOMOAQlwTmebv11fnNl+fj73z9G+rcQGJ+aZbG37KHbSHRngdKJY/7VocNZpkf2tsYN7cF2CK8f6ZNQ2I85Obn2UHxUH5lB31oUTOS/UG0Bi1fW7bBqEPNREe5C84DVNwPRXmw=
Date: 17 Aug 2009 13:03:57 -0000
Message-ID: <>
From: John Levine <>
In-Reply-To: <>
X-Headerized: yes
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [Asrg] [ASRG] SMTP pull anyone?
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: Mon, 17 Aug 2009 13:04:27 -0000

> By allowing the system to cut most of the spam through a simple pull
> mechanism, compares very well against today's anti-spam software
> model, which not all can afford.

I gather that you are proposing a system in which mail from a particular
domain can only be offered from servers that are somehow authorized by
or related to that domain.  If so, that is a huge change to the SMTP
store-and-forward model.

The predecessor to SMTP was a hack layered on FTP which only worked if
the sender and recipient systems were both online at the same time
and could talk directly to each other.  SMTP store-and-forward
was a big advance over that a lot of real useful mail systems depend
on being able to deliver mail in multiple stages.

If your idea is that mail from can only come from a
server or something like that, you might want to explain how your
proposal differs from RSS, and particularly from the model in the
Tumbleweed patent.



>I guess we are expecting a magic solution that will stop all the spam in a
>single go and would not require us from changing our system continuosly.

No we are not, and I have to say that's not a very useful line of argument.