RE: [Asrg] seeking comments on new RMX article

["Eric D. Williams" <eric@infobro.com>]

On Monday, May 05, 2003 9:02 PM, Daniel Feenberg [SMTP:feenberg@nber.org] 
wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, 5 May 2003, Vernon Schryver wrote:
>
> >
> > What accountability is lacking but would be provided by RMX for the
> > unsolicited bulk email from Verisign, American Express, Roving Software,
> > Topica, and the rest of the Fortune 50,000 that would be our topic if
> > the "Bill Zhangs" were not so productive?  The Fortune 50,000 send
> > with unforged headers that point directly at themselves.
> >
>
> I think what is left unstated in this dispute is that the RMX proponents
> would like to discriminate among senders at a finer level than the IP
> address of the connecting host. They want to accept legitimate mail from
> spam-friendly connection IPs, and reject other mail. This would reduce the
> need for ISPs to "censor" their customer's incoming/outgoing mail, and the
> need for customers to find an ISP with a mail policy they can live with.

I don't follow that premise.  How does RMX lead to a '[desire] to accept mail 
from spam-friendly connection IPs, and reject other mail'?  How would the 
introduction of RMX affect my (recipient MTA) policy formulation in your 
example?

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