Subject: Re: [Asrg] 4d. Consent Framework - Protocols and Formats (was Re: [Asrg] SMTP l

From: "John Fenley" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 Aug 2003 15:44:01 -0600

From: "Eric Dean" <[email-masked]>
>
>Guys,
>
>Consent based systems don't exist.  Challenge response systems do
>exist...though often broken.  Rather than create something new, let's try 
>to
>fix what we have..then understand how to design it better.
>
>In other words, I have yet to receive a single comment on the CRI draft.
>There's a lot of smart people in the group..let's hear it.

My Current viewpoint on C/R and CRI:

I made a realization just a while ago. C/R basically is a fix for a missing 
part of SMTP.
SMTP (AFAIK) has no provisions for a handshake between addresses. SMTP is 
all MTA to MTA handshakes.
With this new understanding I see C/R as an acceptable way to replicate on a 
higher level the equivalent of a SYN/ACK three way handshake between the 2 
addresses involved.

Once this handshake has been performed and a connection is opened any other 
information transmited is extra and is the realm of the future users of that 
connection.

This view treats Email addresses as a new "high level IP address" for use in 
routing other information. If they are treated as such, many problems such 
as "dropped packets" and "latency" may already be solved by modern 
networking protocols. Then all that is left is consent.

Extrapolation of this view 1 more level brings us to the main issue.
The "Person" is the true destination address.

Usualy when an Email is sent the intended result is to get a message to a 
person.
The Email address tends to resolve to a person in the same way a domain name 
tends to resolve to a static IP.
This view is supported by the popularity of email address based Instant 
Messaging in which 2 way communications between actual persons is 
accomplished through the use of an address as a universal locator and ID.
Messaging systems in general should take into account that person to person 
is the real goal of device to device, and that networking protocols should 
be used if at all possible regardless of what it is called.

The reason I think spam is troublesome is that it is the equivalent of 
someone sending a stream of data at a computer without first opening a 
mutual connection, and without supplying any means to close the connection. 
The general spam problem thus converted becomes an issue of preventing 
unauthorized access to the end user, and enforcing compliance with yet to be 
established authorization protocols.

John Fenley
www.Choicelist.com

_________________________________________________________________
MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2 months FREE*  
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus

_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg