IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Endymail] spam versus cleartext

Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie> Sun, 07 September 2014 15:44 UTC

Return-Path: <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
X-Original-To: endymail@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: endymail@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B175B1A0538 for <endymail@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 7 Sep 2014 08:44:55 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.552
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.552 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.652] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id gH8ckTYtw6ka for <endymail@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 7 Sep 2014 08:44:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mercury.scss.tcd.ie (mercury.scss.tcd.ie [134.226.56.6]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F1C201A0535 for <endymail@ietf.org>; Sun, 7 Sep 2014 08:44:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mercury.scss.tcd.ie (Postfix) with ESMTP id 94EBFBE09; Sun, 7 Sep 2014 16:44:51 +0100 (IST)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at scss.tcd.ie
Received: from mercury.scss.tcd.ie ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mercury.scss.tcd.ie [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id YfEB9iKFXGYo; Sun, 7 Sep 2014 16:44:50 +0100 (IST)
Received: from [10.87.48.8] (unknown [86.42.17.17]) by mercury.scss.tcd.ie (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 8685FBE02; Sun, 7 Sep 2014 16:44:50 +0100 (IST)
Message-ID: <540C7D72.7060306@cs.tcd.ie>
Date: Sun, 07 Sep 2014 16:44:50 +0100
From: Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Dave Crocker <dcrocker@gmail.com>, endymail <endymail@ietf.org>
References: <540AABF8.8000605@cisco.com> <540C5BE1.6010405@qti.qualcomm.com> <CAMm+Lwh1JJQTOgRN_31b3+oTreeHzntBxx5sNeAFQAwnac9trw@mail.gmail.com> <29088157-04F4-4E22-A604-A35C3B217C98@gmail.com> <540C7963.8040204@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <540C7963.8040204@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/endymail/5tV29stxHU3UQD1X5HJgdXS-Y0w
Subject: Re: [Endymail] spam versus cleartext
X-BeenThere: endymail@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: <endymail.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/endymail>, <mailto:endymail-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/endymail/>
List-Post: <mailto:endymail@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:endymail-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/endymail>, <mailto:endymail-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 07 Sep 2014 15:44:55 -0000


On 07/09/14 16:27, Dave Crocker wrote:
> 
> As this has been discussed in other conversations, the only way I see
> that happening is to move the relevant portions of the engine into the
> recipient's MUA, and then have that sub-engine consult with the main
> engine.  ("Consult" is a code word for needing an open protocol between
> the MUA and the filtering engine.)

I think Dave's is a fine example of what we might get from this
list - identifying work that the IETF can do that'd potentially
help a number of different e2e email solutions.

Cheers,
S.

v2.8.7 | Report a Bug | By Email