RE: [Asrg] Several Observations and a solution that addresses them all

[Jason Hihn <jhihn@paytimepayroll.com>]

I'm not concerned. Get the spam off the net, and watch reliability go up.
;-)

I don't think the resources required to implement temp fail to be that
substantial.
Furthermore, currently victims of forged addresses have to face the wrath of
the receivers of the forged email. This way, the email would be rejected.

Once this solution was in wide-enough adoption, forged addresses would be
useless and pointless anyway, thereby making it a mute point.


-----Original Message-----
From: Jon Kyme [mailto:jrk@merseymail.com]
Sent: Monday, March 10, 2003 1:18 PM
To: Jason Hihn
Cc: ASRG
Subject: Re: [Asrg] Several Observations and a solution that addresses
them all


>
> Here's how. Each message must have a valid from address. This address is
> validated against and ISP's database. If the account exists, then the
> mail
> is allowed to be received, otherwise it is thrown in the trash. It's very
> much like putting a return address on an envelope, but since
> computers/networks are so fast we can verify in real time that it is
> fast.
> Any mail without a return address gets put in the trash (and this is


Sadly, the network isn't guaranteed to be either fast or reliable.
A system like this has to cope with "TEMPFAIL" type situations.

Also this kind of technique imposes a cost on victims of forged from
addresses. This has been covered before (so why am I saying it again?)
While this isn't a fatal objection - it doesn't seem at all fair.






--

_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg