At 08:06 20-08-2007, John C Klensin wrote:
I was trying to suggest --obviously in too subtle a way-- that
the supposedly easy-to-deploy transport-based systems often
don't work well if there is more than one hop. If that is
equivalent to what you say above, then so be it: the apparent
silliness of that statement may be just the point.
Transport-based systems may seem easy to deploy as you don't have to
upgrade the MUAs out there. The other argument that server-side
technologies can gain faster adoption if you take into account that
most of the users interact with this simple protocol through a web
interface. We still need to use a list to assess reputation when
using transport-based systems. If we have to pass the assessment to
MUA, we still face that question of MUA upgrades.
At 08:59 20-08-2007, Dave Crocker wrote:
By way of clarifying the point I was trying to make about path-registration
administrative overhead: It is easy to create the first record. By that
measure, the barrier to adoption for a 'sender' can be extremely low. No new
software and maybe one or a few DNS records. This is goodness.
The barrier of adoption for some senders may be low but it may be a
hurdle to others if we take into account geographical boundaries or
size of business. Unfortunately, we won't hear the voices of those
facing the disconnect.
Regards,
-sm
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf