Subject: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - RMX-like implementation via rDNS

From: Claus Assmann <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2003 09:52:42 -0700

Is there any chance that the authors of the varies "RMX" proposals
work together on a common draft that at least defines the entries
in DNS and their semantics?

I want to add support for this into a common MTA, but I don't want
to deal with many different kinds of DNS entries. I prefer a solution
that doesn't require changes to DNS servers/resolvers, i.e., which
uses existing RRs (like DRIP does) and which minimizes the number
of required DNS lookups.

_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg

---

From: Yakov Shafranovich <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2003 16:01:16 -0400

> uses existing RRs (like DRIP does) and which minimizes the number

Unfortunatly, some of the proposal authors are not longer present. If 
someone wants to go through the mailing list and put together a list of 
proposals and authors, I will contact them.

Additionally, as mentioned before, we need to work on the foundational 
documents first, before proposals. The requirements document, technical 
considerations, inventory of problems, and consent framework all need 
volunteers and review. Please step forward people!

Yakov

---

From: Jose Marcio Martins da Cruz <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2003 10:12:31 +0200

I agree with Claus.

SPAM is a very serious problem and needs to be addressed ASAP.

Final work from ASRG may take some long time.

It could be interesting to have some kind of solution working soon.

RMX seems to solve many problems and drastically reduce spam without 
changing too much existing standards. So, it can be deployed in less 
time than others.

As long as SPAM is nowadays a very serious problem, some easy to 
implement solution may be widely adopted and deployed faster than 
usually does others solutions and standards.

If this hurts the idea that a project needs to be conducted with rigour, 
we can also say that an immediate solution to the spam problem, maybe 
intermediate, must be put into practice soon.

Regards

Jose-Marcio

-- 
  ---------------------------------------------------------------
  Jose Marcio MARTINS DA CRUZ           Tel. :(33) 01.40.51.93.41
  Ecole des Mines de Paris              http://j-chkmail.ensmp.fr
  60, bd Saint Michel                http://www.ensmp.fr/~martins
  75272 - PARIS CEDEX 06      mailto:[email-masked]

---

From: Yakov Shafranovich <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2003 11:06:50 -0400

As I mentioned in my other post, someone needs to at least figure out 
how many of these proposals are there, and compile a list of authors.

---

From: Jose Marcio Martins da Cruz <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2003 18:29:03 +0200

Yes, but there were no answer nor to you, nor to Claus.

Maybe, if the authors prefer, someone who isn't directly involved with their proposals, could 
compile all the proposals, as you're asking for.

Yakov Shafranovich wrote:
>> If this hurts the idea that a project needs to be conducted with 
>> rigour, we can also say that an immediate solution to the spam 
>> problem, maybe intermediate, must be put into practice soon.
>>
>> Regards
>>
>> Jose-Marcio
>>
>>
>> Claus Assmann wrote:
>>

---

From: Yakov Shafranovich <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2003 12:00:48 -0400

Paul and myself will be contacting the authors again today and we'll let 
you know what happens. At least one author is still in the group 
monitoring the situation.

It would definatly help to have a third party help with the process. I 
will let you know what happens.

Yakov

Jose Marcio Martins da Cruz wrote:
> Maybe, if the authors prefer, someone who isn't directly involved with 
> their proposals, could compile all the proposals, as you're asking for.
> 
>

---

From: Jonathan Morton <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2003 17:24:11 +0100

> their proposals, could compile all the proposals, as you're asking > for.

I think that would be a good idea.  Proposal authors are, quite 
understandably, biased towards their own solutions, so an impartial 
arbiter would be ideal.

--------------------------------------------------------------
from:     Jonathan "Chromatix" Morton
mail:     [email-masked]
website:  http://www.chromatix.uklinux.net/
tagline:  The key to knowledge is not to rely on people to teach you it.

---

From: Yakov Shafranovich <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2003 13:52:58 -0400

> understandably, biased towards their own solutions, so an impartial 

Another useful thing that a third party can do here, is to write up an 
objective evalution of the RMX idea in general, listing various cons and 
pros. Preferabally, this should be based on the two checklists in the 
tech considerations document and the requirements. Paul Vixie outlined 
some of the issues on his proposal:

http://www.irtf.org/asrg/draft-vixie-repudiating-mail-from.txt

There is also an excellent presentation from William Leibzon outlining 
different methods of email path verification:

http://www.elan.net/~william/asrg-emailpathverification-presentation.pdf