Re: [Asrg] MTA registration means Path registration

["Alan DeKok" <aland at ox.org>]

Jim Witte <jswitte at bloomington.in.us> wrote:
>    There may be nothing wrong with SMTP, *for the purpose and original 
> populataion* for which it was intended.  A population which did *not* 
> (for the most part) include virus-writers and spammers.

  Exactly.  Within a trusted environment, SMTP is fine.  On the net...

> What does a biological organism do when a new parasite evolves?  It
> adapts!  Perhaps that's what needs to happen to SMTP, and I think
> this is what Alan is saying.

  Yes.  I *don't* want to throw out SMTP, because I think it's very
nearly correct.  But I *do* want to discuss it's demonstrated flaws,
and how to correct them.

> [ new, non-spammy email protocol ] would the current SMTP protocol
> last a minute?  I don't think so.

  I think it would also prove the lie of "any new system will take
years to deploy".  It's all hypothetical, but I could see 10% of email
traffic using a new system within weeks, and the majority within less
than a year.  After that, the "years to deploy" problem exists only
for the people who refuse to upgrade, or who are unaware they're
running SMTP on their systems.

  It's called "incentive to upgrade".

>    Technically, no, there is not anything to distinguish different MTAs. 

  Technically?  They may all be running the same software on the
identical machines, but I can look at the "Received:" lines, and
discern which roles they play.  It's not hard.  I did it using the
data Dave quoted, and his response was... to pretend it never
happened.

>   But I don't think Alan was not trying to *techniclaly* distinguish 
> them.  He was trying to create terminology to describe their *function* 
> as part of the entire email system.

  Exactly.

  Dave wants to call every MTA a "relay", no matter what it does.
Since "MTA == relay", we have two synonymous terms, which means one is
redundant.

> Perhaps we need another layer to describe *how* people use
> applications when they are interconnected into systems which may
> have malevolent components (spammers and viruses/worms). 

  Or when they are connected to *any* email system.  This is my point.

  Unless we have names for the roles played by the participants in an
email system, we WILL NOT understand how that system works, or how to
fix it.

  Dave doesn't want to create *new* names, based on new understanding.
And he doesn't want to admit that, either.

  Alan DeKok.

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