Re: [Asrg] pre-rfc thought balloon: ESMTP DATAFIRST

[George Schlossnagle <george at omniti.com>]

David Nicol wrote:

> point by point responses below.
>
> On 6/6/06, George Schlossnagle <george at omniti.com> wrote:
>
> > David Nicol wrote:
> >
> > > Okay, how does this grab you:
> >
> > Why should a reciever expend the resources to provide templatization of
> > senders' mail?
>
>
> receivers coddle B2C senders in order to keep them better behaved.  Less
> bandwidth is used by templated mass-customized mail than would be by
> fully expanded mail.  Rate limits can be imposed (and exceptions 
> sold.)  The
> receivers offer templatization as a carrot to encourage B2C bulk senders
> migrating to the new method.

I don't buy this at all.  I don't know of any receivers that I would 
classify as 'coddling' large b2c senders.  In general receivers don't 
need to be offering carrots to large b2c senders, the stick seems to 
work fine; there's been mainly stick (or future threat of stick) around 
setting up DK/DKIM signing and adoption of that has been working well.

> > Also, if I were sending such mail, I would be concerned
> > that it leaves my control in a non-final state - seems a huge liability
> > issue on both sides of the transaction.
>
>
> well-defined templatization can be considered a form of compression.  
> Would
> you be concerned about losing control if you knew that your message was
> going to pass through gzip and then, later, gunzip?  (as an aside I 
> think there
> are compressed MIME types but no ZIP SMTP extension defined at this
> time, without doing any research on that point, although I expect TLS 
> might
> offer some compression along with the encryption)

The differences in regards to content creation responsibility, interop, 
liability for cretaed content etc. between doing templatization and 
doing compression are hopefully obvious.

George

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