Subject: Re: MTAmark (was: Reality check please)

From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2004 13:32:23 -0700

Well as someone will undoubtedly point out according to the theory the list
is what counts.

I don't think we should move on mta mark type ideas at this point, if we do
we should be looking at something more general than just spam. 

But it is certainly useful to ask what a marid style mta mark proposal would
lok like. It helps validate the marid design if it is extensible to cover
here as well.

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	wayne [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent:	Fri Jun 11 11:26:44 2004
To:	IETF MARID WG
Subject:	Re: MTAmark (was: Reality check please)

In <[email-masked]> Markus Stumpf
<[email-masked]> writes:

> On Thu, Jun 10, 2004 at 09:21:07PM -0700, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
>> I am unable to support MTAMARK because [...]
>
> MTAMARK suggests adding [...]

You guys are raising good and interesting points about both the pros
and cons of things like MTAMARK, but this is all irrelevant.  Since
the interim meeting, all 2821 proposals are now out of scope.  The
suggestion of pursing both 2822 and 2821 proposals was also rejected,
one reason cited was 2821 discussions would cause too much traffic on
this mailing list.

I don't think Markus was at the meeting, but PHB was, so I'm surprised
he is posting this out of scope stuff.

-wayne

---

From: "william(at)elan.net" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2004 16:27:33 -0700 (PDT)

On the other hand while the current primary work is on SPF+CallerID, that 
does not mean the group can not work on other DNS+email authorization 
ideas now or in the future. MTAMark should remain as one of the topics for 
current and future discussions of this WG. But just not something that we
should work very hard to get done by next next IETF (and at that time it 
would be good to reexamine our timeline to see whats next).