IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Endymail] spam versus cleartext

Brandon Long <blong@google.com> Mon, 08 September 2014 21:13 UTC

Return-Path: <blong@google.com>
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 ECD261A02FF for <endymail@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 8 Sep 2014 14:13:59 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.03
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.03 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.652, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 fWFfCdumjkFY for <endymail@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 8 Sep 2014 14:13:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ig0-x22f.google.com (mail-ig0-x22f.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c05::22f]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8DC651A02A6 for <endymail@ietf.org>; Mon, 8 Sep 2014 14:13:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ig0-f175.google.com with SMTP id uq10so3507636igb.14 for <endymail@ietf.org>; Mon, 08 Sep 2014 14:13:57 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=eUkSG3y6e5kfDDeaqotlv88EMHPjF/z1eVoCBBx9xpA=; b=pzhTYULnoGDM22Q7+qf8OCUXGJsx2TF0ZjBc8LwOFSlX7XO8RERz61AqnEyNY0Lhqx MDKgbqqVaFV9RPj/1zsV4BM8HzUZfRADP8a4uZanzP6ZwesDCqalp3f32Z+ejPWEN67Z 1nfR8XZu7wiKZjgEsnKiYZJwl3ofrs/cm7NFGW7lF4q3hOMcGJsiC3lm0rnT5WrHbtMj yCE1n7Nb9kuL4z1VGdfN7nfRuuPcJtc9ZsvAF+Mh6Bsngh4usrD30hkALeA3iZQ7Xijs JqJzkc/E2Bn+n5dvhfr06eV5yTzCiHQWRMhx8aup9uixKzdj2Vporft5XSaMQoSZJoBn mVvQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=eUkSG3y6e5kfDDeaqotlv88EMHPjF/z1eVoCBBx9xpA=; b=ShtEiShNfV6DfzOIFzdnQ0oJaTKoLmSVtZfa0wpN6rFnkkFcwmIRmY/LkiGr0WlNdX a/6ysWE9hrXIeWSfhV7lcp18Mign1BEh/OYmSZ7RWGU7g3p36ArX+ie80NqiojBoKy3Q VJsDb/Qa4pKoUTyfzeBcVG4b0pfOC/HcroZBaLrrRF9Rt5gO7Fis7mgQvZm2Wj0ivNMI jKJMmFa5GdDBgQWKJsKE//w7xB8JlWY+niDECB1m48/fdkdb3r1fIPerCCmLlnNC5MBV h2G86CK6s+Nk7JNgoijpfuVkJklTqWyYS3WDQ2mJYlZlUnYxgms/CstgAX7pM2CuHzBC GoSQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQlFf/ieoufHvZ/15bqbAPQT9vkmv/yc+0EJm8KbdR9eqdIGouAz7lIFUGTlKluSs5HYyniO
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.50.72.43 with SMTP id a11mr26555917igv.23.1410210836877; Mon, 08 Sep 2014 14:13:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.64.62.78 with HTTP; Mon, 8 Sep 2014 14:13:56 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAMm+LwgsiJwjngoKcHsaP+mF=yArtx_h_YcGL98-xRb7AZ8ZAA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <540AABF8.8000605@cisco.com> <540C5BE1.6010405@qti.qualcomm.com> <540C7399.3060901@cisco.com> <CAMm+LwgsiJwjngoKcHsaP+mF=yArtx_h_YcGL98-xRb7AZ8ZAA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 8 Sep 2014 14:13:56 -0700
Message-ID: <CABa8R6u6JKtSPxc__XoffrMLxka6q+KqE43dbgQrSK3xPtZScw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Brandon Long <blong@google.com>
To: Phillip Hallam-Baker <phill@hallambaker.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7bdc15e0fe09a10502944b7f
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/endymail/vnQ8-aDs1tSdY7qARNrgys-3GyU
Cc: Pete Resnick <presnick@qti.qualcomm.com>, endymail <endymail@ietf.org>, Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com>
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: Mon, 08 Sep 2014 21:14:00 -0000

On Sun, Sep 7, 2014 at 11:10 AM, Phillip Hallam-Baker <phill@hallambaker.com
> wrote:

> On Sun, Sep 7, 2014 at 11:02 AM, Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com> wrote:
> > Let's talk constraints for a moment.  Does the problem get easier if we
> > say, “let's not even attempt to address transactional email”, and focus
> > exclusively on h2h?  Also, is it a goal to completely do away with
> > spam?  Is that a non-goal?
>
> Transactional mail is the easiest to do and has the biggest payoff. So
> no, not doing it does not help in the slightest.
>
> I don't think we are going to be using this scheme to complete
> transactions. But it has to be possible to use it for applications
> such as:
>
> * Correspondence between lawyers and clients.
> * Sending statements for bank and brokerage accounts.
> * Sending invoices.
>

In particular, it would be great if we could "solve" the problem such that
entities are willing to send things via email that they currently won't.
 For example, my bank won't send me a copy of my monthly statement to my
email address, only a notification to look at it on their site.  This
"hole" seems to be the largest in the email as the solution to paperless
postal mail.

Brandon

v2.8.7 | Report a Bug | By Email