Subject: RE: 3. Requirements - Anonymity (was Re: FW: [Asrg] 0. General)

From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2003 16:01:39 -0800

>   SMTP was designed and intended to be used in a trusted environment.
> Therefore, it has no design features to prevent spam, and no design
> features to help protect the lives of human rights workers.  Anyone
> relying on RFC 2821 SMTP for either "feature" is fooling themselves.

Actually this is not quite true. The work of Ithiel deSola Pool was very
inflential in the design of the Internet. The end to end principle was 
intended to directly address control and censorship issues.

That is not completely relevant to the current question. The IETF does not
own the Internet, parents do not own children. The issue is what the users
of the Internet want.

What the community wants is a solution to both problems.

		Phill

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

---

From: "Alan DeKok" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2003 16:56:05 -0500

> intended to directly address control and censorship issues.

  I understand.  But "end to end" issues are very different from
network abuse issues.  Preventing network abuse isn't censorship.
Preventing forgery of my domain in spam isn't censorship (and yes, it
happens a fair bit.)

  The RMX-style solutions allow recipients to make ISP's accountable
for their network traffic.  They don't affect end-user accountability,
privacy, or authentication.

  Alan DeKok.

---

From: "Eric Dean" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2003 18:32:41 -0500

>   I understand.  But "end to end" issues are very different 
> from network abuse issues.  Preventing network abuse isn't 
> censorship. Preventing forgery of my domain in spam isn't 
> censorship (and yes, it happens a fair bit.)
> 
>   The RMX-style solutions allow recipients to make ISP's 
> accountable for their network traffic.  They don't affect 
> end-user accountability, privacy, or authentication.

I agree.  RMX would merely allow for me to protect my domain from
getting spoofed.  By no means is it an anti-spam method.  I can not
simply implement a force-RMX-check implementation in my mail server
anymore that I can perform a force-reverse-DNS check or
force-HELO-check.  There is simply too much email from valid senders
with pathetic mail administrators.  However, I can perform an RMX check
and if the domain is protected by RMX..I can ensure that the sending
source is from a listed IP.