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

SM <sm@resistor.net> Sat, 13 February 2010 18:27 UTC

Return-Path: <sm@resistor.net>
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 5B8AD3A720F for <asrg@core3.amsl.com>; Sat, 13 Feb 2010 10:27:01 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.38
X-Spam-Level:
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 mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id rBosWbkb1Eic for <asrg@core3.amsl.com>; Sat, 13 Feb 2010 10:27:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ns1.qubic.net (ns1.qubic.net [208.69.177.116]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 594873A7A05 for <asrg@irtf.org>; Sat, 13 Feb 2010 10:26:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: from SUBMAN.resistor.net ([10.0.0.1]) (authenticated bits=0) by ns1.qubic.net (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id o1DI4qj7002132 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for <asrg@irtf.org>; Sat, 13 Feb 2010 10:05:09 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=resistor.net; 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; d=resistor.net; c=simple; q=dns; b=SzOKgkgM0fXOE5pGKalx3jwxvOcRK7i/pvwW/5QfpuIy8jlYq052I6c/Pq75EzeiC WH/GWqON9TU3A7EKz7SnC64rm0oAngRwbhDAG4IjmQDbC8pooNuOgqkAqtLf8zy2HOM +vBXDyn3FXGjA1OfyHid+iF2TFn1KNSnsDbj9mc=
Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20100213084103.09147e10@resistor.net>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6
Date: Sat, 13 Feb 2010 09:29:09 -0800
To: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF <asrg@irtf.org>
From: SM <sm@resistor.net>
In-Reply-To: <201002101854.NAA02859@Sparkle.Rodents-Montreal.ORG>
References: <20100208145917.47911.qmail@simone.iecc.com> <081803693F7489A63A1F70DB@lewes.staff.uscs.susx.ac.uk> <6.2.5.6.2.20100210102340.09454260@resistor.net> <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-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: 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.

Regards,
-sm