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

Dave CROCKER <dhc@dcrocker.net> Tue, 18 August 2009 18:00 UTC

Return-Path: <dhc@dcrocker.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 E43A63A6B7B for <asrg@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 18 Aug 2009 11:00:39 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.719
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.719 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.120, 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 BuudKgxU-q9G for <asrg@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 18 Aug 2009 11:00:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sbh17.songbird.com (unknown [IPv6:2001:470:1:76:0:ffff:4834:7148]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 90E893A697D for <asrg@irtf.org>; Tue, 18 Aug 2009 11:00:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (ppp-68-120-198-98.dsl.pltn13.pacbell.net [68.120.198.98]) (authenticated bits=0) by sbh17.songbird.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n7II0aBQ020596 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for <asrg@irtf.org>; Tue, 18 Aug 2009 11:00:42 -0700
Message-ID: <4A8AEC44.6010706@dcrocker.net>
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2009 11:00:36 -0700
From: Dave CROCKER <dhc@dcrocker.net>
Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.22 (Windows/20090605)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF <asrg@irtf.org>
References: <922a897b0908170253k60c0d57dh5e593c78f9137fab@mail.gmail.com> <4A8ADB9D.5080004@billmail.scconsult.com> <4A8AE22C.7030300@nortel.com>
In-Reply-To: <4A8AE22C.7030300@nortel.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.0 (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.17]); Tue, 18 Aug 2009 11:00:42 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: [Asrg] [ASRG] SMTP pull anyone?
X-BeenThere: asrg@irtf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
Reply-To: dcrocker@bbiw.net, 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: Tue, 18 Aug 2009 18:00:40 -0000

Chris Lewis wrote:
> Bill Cole wrote:
> 
>> I don't see how this reduces the effort required on the receiving side in
>> comparison to currently common practices.
> 
> Precisely - in fact, it increases the work the receiver has to do, 
> probably substantially.


+1.

When discussing different protocol models, folks should be required to explain a 
collection of relatively obvious cost/benefit differences, such as:

1. Latency/Delay

2. Transaction (Round-trip) exchange count

3. Robustness/fragility

4. Administration

5. Privacy

6. Authenticity/Spoofing

...


For the SMTP push model (and ignoring the possible pull last-hop):

1. Low latency
2. A bit too chatty, but pipelining largely fixed this
3. History demonstrates high robustness
4. Low administration (only DNS MX)
5. Privacy is theoretically non-existent
6. Authenticity is demonstrably horrible

d/

d/
-- 

   Dave Crocker
   Brandenburg InternetWorking
   bbiw.net