Subject: [Asrg] 3. SMTP Session/Message Verification - competitive methods

From: "Za'mbori, Zolta'n" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2004 21:22:00 +0100

I think there will be implemented some competitive SMTP level 
session/message/address verification methods.

Cooperativity between the different anti-worm, anti-forgery, anti-spam 
methods is a question for me.

For example implementing more than one SMTP session verification method 
into an MX is lead to a problem: how to select the proper method?

z2

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

---

From: David Nicol <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2004 15:40:24 -0600

Za'mbori, Zolta'n wrote:

> For example implementing more than one SMTP session verification 
> method into an MX is lead to a problem: how to select the proper method?

I'm keeping a database of all senders and asking each and every one of 
them how they wish to
be identified.  But that's just me.

-- 
[email-masked].
Include phrase "cat and buttered toast" to get through my filter

---

From: "Zámbori, Zoltán" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2004 20:42:13 +0100

> be identified.  But that's just me.

Yes, caching is better than reloading.

But why not the SMTP client announce the possibilities? For example: 
"mtamark info is avialable and the Trusted Forwarders Association 
registered us". Or: "Delete this and this part from our email addresses 
before you publish the email address or you query your white-list. VRFY 
callback is avialable. This is a ticket to do the callback".

I think opening the horizont for future steps may a good tactic in the 
spam-war. There are a mechanism for servers announcing SMTP extensions 
but there are no mechanism for clients to do some announcing.

Maybe i am too idealistic.

z2