Re: [Asrg] We don't need no stinkin IMAP or POP, was Adding a spam button to MUAs

Dave CROCKER <> Sat, 06 February 2010 05:53 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1C2213A6B81 for <>; Fri, 5 Feb 2010 21:53:44 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.495
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.495 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.052, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, SUBJECT_FUZZY_TION=0.156]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id LtTGPXVoTGHI for <>; Fri, 5 Feb 2010 21:53:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 345EA3A6B7E for <>; Fri, 5 Feb 2010 21:53:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [] ( []) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id o165sTcN018482 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Fri, 5 Feb 2010 21:54:36 -0800
Message-ID: <>
Date: Fri, 05 Feb 2010 21:54:23 -0800
From: Dave CROCKER <>
Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv: Gecko/20100111 Thunderbird/3.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF <>
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV 0.92/10361/Fri Feb 5 08:44:47 2010 on
X-Virus-Status: Clean
X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.0 ( []); Fri, 05 Feb 2010 21:54:36 -0800 (PST)
Cc: John Levine <>
Subject: Re: [Asrg] We don't need no stinkin IMAP or POP, 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, 06 Feb 2010 05:53:44 -0000

On 2/5/2010 9:27 PM, John Levine wrote:
>> I think the latest round of discussion has eliminated any interest in the
>> message retrieval mechanism.
> Um, this discussion has been about keying the ARF report to the name
> of the POP or IMAP server, remember?

name of.

not protocols details of.

On 2/5/2010 9:30 PM, John Levine wrote:
 >> The right hand side of a SRV record is a hostname, not an email address.
 >> (Trivially worked around in at least two obvious ways).
 > Right.  I suggested using a fixed mailbox name, and there's always
 > the SOA hack

That's very Procrustean of you.

Given that the right hand side can be variable, why proscribe the left hand side 
when that's not necessary, when using a TXT record.

 > I don't see any a priori reason to expect MUAs to be any worse at
 > looking up SRV than looking up TXT.

What about:  TXT is older and pervasive?

The 'older' means exactly that its, ummmm, a priori...

 > What does an MUA do now in normal
 > operation, as opposed to funky plugins, that needs TXT records?

Is there some reason this line of design debate is being based on theory rather 
than empirical knowledge?

Let's choose an inferior RR because it's just as likely to have been implemented 
as a more useful RR (that's been around longer)?


   Dave Crocker
   Brandenburg InternetWorking