[Asrg] Re: Email service assumptions and making system-wide changes
Frank Ellermann <nobody@xyzzy.claranet.de> Thu, 19 January 2006 07:48 UTC
Received: from localhost.cnri.reston.va.us ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1EzUWg-00027l-Lg; Thu, 19 Jan 2006 02:48:10 -0500
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1EzUWc-00026p-RG for asrg@megatron.ietf.org; Thu, 19 Jan 2006 02:48:07 -0500
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id CAA27965 for <asrg@ietf.org>; Thu, 19 Jan 2006 02:46:39 -0500 (EST)
Received: from main.gmane.org ([80.91.229.2] helo=ciao.gmane.org) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1EzUf2-0004WJ-Gn for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 19 Jan 2006 02:56:53 -0500
Received: from list by ciao.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1EzUWE-0000Ij-2c for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 19 Jan 2006 08:47:44 +0100
Received: from pd9fba91f.dip0.t-ipconnect.de ([217.251.169.31]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for <asrg@ietf.org>; Thu, 19 Jan 2006 08:47:42 +0100
Received: from nobody by pd9fba91f.dip0.t-ipconnect.de with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for <asrg@ietf.org>; Thu, 19 Jan 2006 08:47:42 +0100
X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/
To: asrg@ietf.org
From: Frank Ellermann <nobody@xyzzy.claranet.de>
Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2006 08:44:23 +0100
Organization: <URL:http://purl.net/xyzzy>
Lines: 27
Message-ID: <43CF4357.50B@xyzzy.claranet.de>
References: <17356.38171.951736.912706@world.std.com> <OFFE10648F.FD8AB2E7-ON802570FA.0035C93C-802570FA.0035EABB@slc.co.uk> <17358.53777.280181.751442@world.std.com> <20060119063333.GA2368@ender>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org
X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: pd9fba91f.dip0.t-ipconnect.de
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (OS/2; U)
X-Spam-Score: 0.1 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 0bc60ec82efc80c84b8d02f4b0e4de22
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: [Asrg] Re: Email service assumptions and making system-wide changes
X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF <asrg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg>, <mailto:asrg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www1.ietf.org/pipermail/asrg>
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>
Sender: asrg-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: asrg-bounces@ietf.org
Laird Breyer wrote: > I think what Danny means is that an effective solution needs > to be end-to-end (RFC1958). Only the sender and recipient > should be involved, the intervening network should only > transport bits. 1958 is an informational RfC not talking about SMTP. For SMTP there's a point where mail from one side (MON, mail originating network in Keith's terminology) reaches the other side (MRN, a mail receiving network). It's the point where a last MTA in the MON does a query=mx to find a first MTA in the MRN. That singularity is the point where "unknown strangers" are forced to talk with each other. The "path registration" schemes (Dave's terminology) focus on precisely this one singularity to sort it out. Any mess before this point is the problem of the MON, and any issues behind it are the problem of the MRN. MAIL FROM, Return-Path, and reverse path are no metaphors, they are used to report problems. Where RFC 2821 said "originator as indicated in the Return-Path" it's now in most cases a lie. Bye, Frank _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg
- [Asrg] Re: Bots Frank Ellermann
- [Asrg] Spam, why is it still a problem? Craig Cockburn
- Re: [Asrg] Spam, why is it still a problem? der Mouse
- Re: [Asrg] Spam, why is it still a problem? Tom Petch
- Re: [Asrg] Spam, why is it still a problem? Danny Angus
- Re: [Asrg] Spam, why is it still a problem? Andrew W. Donoho
- Re: [Asrg] Spam, why is it still a problem? Dave Crocker
- [Asrg] Re: Spam, why is it still a problem? Frank Ellermann
- Re: [Asrg] Spam, why is it still a problem? Barry Shein
- RE: [Asrg] Spam, why is it still a problem? Hallam-Baker, Phillip
- Re: [Asrg] Spam, why is it still a problem? Seth Breidbart
- [Asrg] Email service assumptions and making syste… Dave Crocker
- Re: [Asrg] Email service assumptions and making s… Barry Shein
- [Asrg] Re: Email service assumptions and making s… Frank Ellermann
- Re: [Asrg] Email service assumptions and making s… Seth Breidbart
- Re: [Asrg] Email service assumptions and making s… Douglas Otis
- Re: [Asrg] Email service assumptions and making s… Barry Shein
- Re: [Asrg] Email service assumptions and making s… Seth Breidbart
- [Asrg] Re: Spam, why is it still a problem? Stephane Bortzmeyer
- Re: [Asrg] Re: Spam, why is it still a problem? Gadi Evron
- [Asrg] Re: Spam, why is it still a problem? Stephane Bortzmeyer
- Re: [Asrg] Re: Spam, why is it still a problem? Tom Petch
- Bots was Re: [Asrg] Email service assumptions and… Tom Petch
- Re: [Asrg] Email service assumptions and making s… John Levine
- Re: Bots was Re: [Asrg] Email service assumptions… John Levine
- Re: [Asrg] Email service assumptions and making s… Barry Shein
- Re: [Asrg] Email service assumptions and making s… Douglas Otis
- Re: Bots was Re: [Asrg] Email service assumptions… Barry Shein
- [Asrg] Re: Bots Frank Ellermann
- RE: [Asrg] Re: Bots Larry Seltzer
- Re: [Asrg] Re: Bots Douglas Otis
- Re: [Asrg] Re: Bots Seth Breidbart
- [Asrg] Re: Bots Frank Ellermann
- Re: [Asrg] Spam, why is it still a problem? Craig Cockburn
- [Asrg] Re: Bots Frank Ellermann
- Re: [Asrg] Re: Spam, why is it still a problem? Craig Cockburn
- RE: [Asrg] Re: Bots Larry Seltzer
- Re: [Asrg] Re: Bots Gadi Evron
- Re: [Asrg] Re: Spam, why is it still a problem? Douglas Otis
- Re: [Asrg] Spam, why is it still a problem? John Levine
- Re: [Asrg] Spam, why is it still a problem? Craig Cockburn
- Re: [Asrg] Re: Spam, why is it still a problem? Craig Cockburn
- Re: [Asrg] Spam, why is it still a problem? Danny Angus
- Re: [Asrg] Email service assumptions and making s… Danny Angus
- Re: [Asrg] Email service assumptions and making s… Danny Angus
- Re: [Asrg] Spam, why is it still a problem? John Levine
- Re: [Asrg] Spam, why is it still a problem? John Levine
- Re: [Asrg] Email service assumptions and making s… Seth Breidbart
- Re: [Asrg] Spam, why is it still a problem? Craig Cockburn
- Re: [Asrg] Spam, why is it still a problem? Bill Cole
- Re: [Asrg] Spam, why is it still a problem? John Levine
- Re: [Asrg] Spam, why is it still a problem? Barry Shein
- Re: [Asrg] Email service assumptions and making s… Barry Shein
- Re: [Asrg] Email service assumptions and making s… Laird Breyer
- [Asrg] Re: Email service assumptions and making s… Frank Ellermann
- Re: [Asrg] Email service assumptions and making s… Danny Angus
- Re: [Asrg] Spam, why is it still a problem? John Levine
- RE: [Asrg] Re: Spam, why is it still a problem? Wesley Peters
- Re: [Asrg] Spam, why is it still a problem? Dave Crocker
- Re: [Asrg] Email service assumptions and making s… Dave Crocker
- Re: [Asrg] Spam, why is it still a problem? Danny Angus