Vernon Schryver <vjs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> From: John Leslie <john@xxxxxxx> > >> But I, at least, am thinking in terms of an implementation where we >> notify the SMTP-sending-server during the SMTP session, with a message >> including a URL for more information. IMHO, this would tend to converge >> to a situation where end-users understood the issue -- and learned to >> route around it. ;^) > > Where is the business of the main IETF mailing list in that suggestion? That statement -- outlining my personal thinking -- was intended to solicit consensus on Iljitsch's principle from Dave Crocker and/or those who think like him. (I know most people have given up on ever finding consensus from Dave, but I'm a slow learner...) > It is already a de facto standard. (Most people, when they say "de facto standard", mean something already done by a strong majority. But, of course, that's not what the words mean, so I won't argue your usage.) I'm frankly not concerned whether that practice is endorsed as a standard. > Many and probably most well run SMTP servers include an appropriate > message in their 5yz rejection messages when spam detection is the > issue. Today an appropriate message is often a URL. Agreed. Enough people are doing it that the idea will surely spread. Even the dinosaurs (cable companies and incumbent phone companies) will catch on eventually. > There are details that could be officially standardized such as formats > that MUAs could more easily recognize and present to end users. The > bounces generated by the near-end MTA after a failed SMTP session are > incomprehensible to many people. Some MTAs (e.g. Hotmail's when I last > checked) include random text in their session transcripts apparently > drawn from random SMTP sessions during that last several hours. All items which I'd be happy to see discussed in MARID. > However, this sort of standardization seems more appropriate for some > SMTP WG or the ASRG than here. There is no MARID mailing-list yet, so we're stuck here for a few more days. (ASRG is not an IETF group.) In the meantime, I'm trying to solicit consensus -- no matter how "rough" -- on principles of spam abatement, not details of its implementation. -- John Leslie <john@xxxxxxx>