[Asrg] POSTAGE Re: Too Big to Block?

Bart Schaefer <schaefer@brasslantern.com> Thu, 09 July 2009 16:33 UTC

Return-Path: <schaefer@closedmail.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 831FD3A6D08 for <asrg@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 9 Jul 2009 09:33:12 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[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 GSTt+9DJbFCb for <asrg@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 9 Jul 2009 09:33:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from vms173003pub.verizon.net (vms173003pub.verizon.net [206.46.173.3]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CC15E3A6D0F for <asrg@irtf.org>; Thu, 9 Jul 2009 09:33:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from torch.brasslantern.com ([96.238.220.32]) by vms173003.mailsrvcs.net (Sun Java(tm) System Messaging Server 6.3-7.04 (built Sep 26 2008; 32bit)) with ESMTPA id <0KMI0016GWN33L4K@vms173003.mailsrvcs.net> for asrg@irtf.org; Thu, 09 Jul 2009 11:33:08 -0500 (CDT)
Received: from torch.brasslantern.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by torch.brasslantern.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id n69GX2ef018786 for <asrg@irtf.org>; Thu, 09 Jul 2009 09:33:02 -0700
Received: (from schaefer@localhost) by torch.brasslantern.com (8.13.1/8.13.1/Submit) id n69GX2dH018785 for asrg@irtf.org; Thu, 09 Jul 2009 09:33:02 -0700
From: Bart Schaefer <schaefer@brasslantern.com>
Message-id: <090709093302.ZM18784@torch.brasslantern.com>
Date: Thu, 09 Jul 2009 09:33:02 -0700
Comments: In reply to John Leslie <john@jlc.net> "Re: [Asrg] Too Big to Block?" (Jul 9, 11:27am)
X-Mailer: OpenZMail Classic (0.9.2 24April2005)
To: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF <asrg@irtf.org>
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Subject: [Asrg] POSTAGE Re: Too Big to Block?
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: Thu, 09 Jul 2009 16:33:12 -0000

Incidentally, the POSTAGE draft expired a couple of weeks ago.  Is it
worth re-issuing?  Anything new to say?

I've been following the threads spawned by Claudio Telmon's draft and
its intersection with some of the other threads; it appears to me that
there is some potential overlap with the POSTAGE draft.  For example,
Claudio's consent-token header is very similar to a proposal I made for
the "tunneling" of postage tokens through forwarding MTAs that don't
support the protocol at the SMTP level.  That was left out of POSTAGE
in the interests of simplicity.