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

John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> Mon, 17 August 2009 13:04 UTC

Return-Path: <johnl@iecc.com>
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 5ADD63A6ED7 for <asrg@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 17 Aug 2009 06:04:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -18.596
X-Spam-Level:
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 mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id awRzW+4Ntgz5 for <asrg@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 17 Aug 2009 06:04:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from gal.iecc.com (gal.iecc.com [208.31.42.53]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 73A6A3A6EFB for <asrg@irtf.org>; Mon, 17 Aug 2009 06:03:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 15340 invoked from network); 17 Aug 2009 13:03:57 -0000
Received: from mail1.iecc.com (208.31.42.56) by mail1.iecc.com with QMQP; 17 Aug 2009 13:03:57 -0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=iecc.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:cc:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=k0908; olt=johnl@user.iecc.com; bh=nyTAPL0kA2LBIAtEgS9qQOdlwtfHoVMfq5AABWMMQoY=; b=dhDVUaGriRiO7OMOMZafAPTGbR4JaIBlNN2sG5zGcnnYNQ6munzm8eRthp4TD4M3cuVT5cX2UdE0mPgn06hVIQv6YogkZtg/+xcZSAgmvubzslVplrQp6sx6olFMAjuTp4dadP2niiBMU1C4YvEhk3lPQciqG1uYfBADPFx+Fhs=
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=taugh.com; 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: <20090817130357.18416.qmail@simone.iecc.com>
From: John Levine <johnl@taugh.com>
To: asrg@irtf.org
In-Reply-To: <922a897b0908170253k60c0d57dh5e593c78f9137fab@mail.gmail.com>
Organization:
Cc:
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-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: 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 foo.com can only come from a foo.com
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.

R's,
John

PS:

>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.