IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Asrg] seeking comments on new RMX article

J C Lawrence <claw@kanga.nu> Wed, 07 May 2003 06:22 UTC

Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id CAA10401 for <asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Wed, 7 May 2003 02:22:41 -0400 (EDT)
Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h476VWd15267 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 7 May 2003 02:31:32 -0400
Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h476VW815264 for <asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org>; Wed, 7 May 2003 02:31:32 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id CAA09852; Wed, 7 May 2003 02:22:11 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19DILg-0005VD-00; Wed, 07 May 2003 02:24:16 -0400
Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=www1.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19DILf-0005VA-00; Wed, 07 May 2003 02:24:15 -0400
Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h476U5815209; Wed, 7 May 2003 02:30:05 -0400
Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h476Tj815164 for <asrg@optimus.ietf.org>; Wed, 7 May 2003 02:29:45 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id CAA07962 for <asrg@ietf.org>; Wed, 7 May 2003 02:20:24 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19DIJw-0005Uw-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 07 May 2003 02:22:29 -0400
Received: from ocker.kanga.nu ([198.144.204.213] helo=dingo.home.kanga.nu) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19DIJw-0005Ut-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 07 May 2003 02:22:28 -0400
Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=kanga.nu) by dingo.home.kanga.nu with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 19DIKk-0005oC-00; Tue, 06 May 2003 23:23:18 -0700
To: Mike Rubel <asrg@mikerubel.org>
cc: "Eric D. Williams" <eric@infobro.com>, "asrg@ietf.org" <asrg@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Asrg] seeking comments on new RMX article
In-Reply-To: Message from Mike Rubel <asrg@mikerubel.org> of "Tue, 06 May 2003 22:30:11 PDT." <Pine.LNX.4.44.0305062223170.13020-100000@tamale.caltech.edu>
References: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0305062223170.13020-100000@tamale.caltech.edu>
X-face: ?<YUs-cNP1\Oc-H>^_yw@fA`CEX&}--=*&XqXbF-oePvxaT4(kyt\nwM9]{]N!>b^K}-Mb9 YH%saz^>nq5usBlD"s{(.h'_w|U^3ldUq7wVZz$`u>MB(-4$f\a6Eu8.e=Pf\
X-image-url: http://www.kanga.nu/~claw/kanga.face.tiff
X-url: http://www.kanga.nu/~claw/
Message-ID: <22331.1052288598@kanga.nu>
From: J C Lawrence <claw@kanga.nu>
Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org
Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12
Precedence: bulk
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg>, <mailto:asrg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF <asrg.ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:asrg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:asrg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg>, <mailto:asrg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
List-Archive: <https://www1.ietf.org/pipermail/asrg/>
Date: Tue, 06 May 2003 23:23:18 -0700

On Tue, 6 May 2003 22:30:11 -0700 (PDT) 
Mike Rubel <asrg@mikerubel.org> wrote:

>> You are attempting to recreate top-down authority structures when
>> the natural (and proper?) tendency of the field in normal
>> legitimate use is for self-authenticating/identifying nodes, not
>> external nomination systems.

> But RMX isn't top-down at all!  

Sure it is.

> Each domain configures its own RMX records, on its own name servers,
> to authenticate its own outgoing mail.  

Right, with the implicit assumption that each domain validly controls
all mail sent in its name, or has reasonable control and expectation
that it can or even should be able to control all mail sent in its name.
I find those assumptions to be unsupportable and destructive.

> There is no new central authority.  

Sure there is, you're naming the holders of the DNS keys as the central
authority for the domain.  Not good.

> I'm not sure what you mean by "external nomination system."

DNS, as a system, is external to the edge nodes that generate mail.  It
is a nominative system in the very simple and direct sense of the word:
It assign authority by naming.

  "FOO is authorised to do XXX because I name FOO as being on the list
  of those who can do XXX."

>> Now, can we move on to digging out a proposal which has a chance of
>> being useful instead of beating dead horses?

> With all due respect, I think it's the fastest horse of the bunch
> right now.  

<shrug>  Its a question of thresholds.  

> But my mind is open--please feel free to suggest others.  I'm willing
> to weigh merits.

I'm partial to the Forward Chained Received: header proposal, but it
suffers significantly from percentage deployment problems (its value
increases exponentially as deployment approaches around 80% before
flattening).  Much as I may like the idea, that single characteristic
likely dooms it.  I'm currently drafting a consent token proposal which
has gotten some running consensus off-list.  I don't expect it to get a
whole lot of traction here as offers nothing at the MTA/transport level
as it is almost purely an MUA-level affair (there's an understandable
focus by the list on server- or transport- side solutions).

-- 
J C Lawrence                
---------(*)                Satan, oscillate my metallic sonatas. 
claw@kanga.nu               He lived as a devil, eh?		  
http://www.kanga.nu/~claw/  Evil is a name of a foeman, as I live.
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email