Re: [Asrg] MX, was Adding a spam button to MUAs

SM <> Sat, 13 February 2010 18:27 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5B8AD3A720F for <>; Sat, 13 Feb 2010 10:27:01 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.38
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.38 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.063, BAYES_00=-2.599, SUBJECT_FUZZY_TION=0.156]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id rBosWbkb1Eic for <>; Sat, 13 Feb 2010 10:27:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 594873A7A05 for <>; Sat, 13 Feb 2010 10:26:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ([]) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id o1DI4qj7002132 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for <>; Sat, 13 Feb 2010 10:05:09 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple;; s=mail; t=1266084312; x=1266170712; bh=0FcoRAIhJhxZzHsZgxlhgfPj9KJJpxjCS1Y0KFjm80k=; h=Message-Id:Date:To:From:Subject:In-Reply-To:References: Mime-Version:Content-Type:Cc; b=3zwvpB4Yr+z3w1WjIpEfMZ5YcauwYGwC8zU/5K24VliwmUN+IPgFfE/eMM+g8Qlme UBPgh1vy5xKixuTm4/d7pPMgWqCOSZyvUWjyayKj7Gjzr2a6l7FoDkwZd8qEIsfy2n qz0tdCz9Ak88fqHU/juf2MNwgjVgEsT7ikyopqxo=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; s=mail;; c=simple; q=dns; b=SzOKgkgM0fXOE5pGKalx3jwxvOcRK7i/pvwW/5QfpuIy8jlYq052I6c/Pq75EzeiC WH/GWqON9TU3A7EKz7SnC64rm0oAngRwbhDAG4IjmQDbC8pooNuOgqkAqtLf8zy2HOM +vBXDyn3FXGjA1OfyHid+iF2TFn1KNSnsDbj9mc=
Message-Id: <>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version
Date: Sat, 13 Feb 2010 09:29:09 -0800
To: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF <>
From: SM <>
In-Reply-To: <201002101854.NAA02859@Sparkle.Rodents-Montreal.ORG>
References: <> <> <> <201002101854.NAA02859@Sparkle.Rodents-Montreal.ORG>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
Subject: Re: [Asrg] MX, was 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, 13 Feb 2010 18:27:01 -0000

At 10:49 10-02-10, der Mouse wrote:
>Why not?  The "rough consensus" appears to be that "anything is
>acceptable provided Google does it", so on "rough consensus and running
>code" grounds, yes, what Google does _should_ set the spec.

If that is the rough consensus, I'll wait for the publication of 
those specifications. :-)

At 05:05 11-02-10, Ian Eiloart wrote:
>What I'm suggesting is that things currently permitted by standards 
>might not be permitted by local policy. I don't like the situation 
>that a DNS lookup can't tell me whether an email domain really is 
>supposed to be deliverable.

If your local policy is to reject my messages, there is nothing I can 
do about it.

At 06:27 11-02-10, John Leslie wrote:
>three assumptions listed above are all false today, but I agreed to
>accept the consensus call on this issue for RFC 5321 because with Doug
>Otis on one side and Dave Crocker on the other, I didn't want to wait
>for one of them to die.


It was a very long discussion where there was also several other 
parties that debated about both sides of the argument.