Subject: RE: [ietf-dkim] ABNF: Sender = Originator / Operator

From: "Nick Nicholas" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2006 11:35:53 -0800

On Friday, March 10, 2006 at 9:08 AM Dave Crocker wrote:

> I am warming to the model you describe.
> 
> 1. It is an extremely well-established model.
> 
> 2. It pertains to salient responsibilities in an information 
> transfer sequence.
> 
> (Given that multiple operators can be in a sequence, I'd 
> suggest 'distributor' 
> rather than 'bookstore'.)
> 
> It scares me quite a bit to have my email operator be vested 
> with apparent responsibility for the content of my email, 
> but, alas, I guess that really is what the anti-abuse work is about.
> 
> What do other folks think?

The author=>publisher=>bookstore/distributor analogy resonates quite
strongly with me (I have a quibble with "distributor" which I'll discuss
in a moment).  It is indeed a scary thought to vest responsibility of a
message content with the email operator, but, as Dave observed, this is
the point we seem to have reached in current messaging abuse control
strategy.  I *do* want the "publisher" of an email message to bear more
responsbility for that message than a receiving MTA.  This seems to be
consistent with the principles of Carl Hutzler's Spamops I-D, and also
in alignment with the direction MAAWG participants seem to be headed:
control spam at the source rather than at the receiving end.

While I understand Dave's point about "distributor", I fear that using
this terminology might be confusing.  Still using the
author/publisher/bookstore analogy, "distributors" might be
intermediaries between publishers and bookstores, and not the parties
responsible for getting books in the hands of readers.  Moreover, the
term might also be thought to refer to parties that are responsible for
transmitting a message, thus confusing "distributors" with "publishers".

But I do like the distinctions between
the-entity-responsible-for-creating-the-content-of-a-message,
the-entity-responsible-for-emanating-a-message[1], and
the-entity-responsible-for-getting-a-message-to-a-recipient.  Differing
roles, differing responsibilities.  I just haven't decided yet which
terms I like best for each of these roles.

Regards,

Nick 

[1]  To be clear, when I speak of "emanating" a message, I am *not*
referring to a situation such as when a secretary types a message for
the boss and then presses the "send" button.

--
 
Nick Nicholas
Knowledge Engineer
Habeas Inc.
650-694-3320
[email-masked]

_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to 
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html

---

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2006 09:07:52 -0500

If the author creates the subject matter he is responsible whether
knowingly or not.
thanks

Bill Oxley 
Messaging Engineer 
Cox Communications, Inc. 
Alpharetta GA 
404-847-6397 
[email-masked] 

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked]
[mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of SM
Sent: Friday, March 17, 2006 12:26 AM
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] ABNF: Sender = Originator / Operator

Hi Dave,
At 12:09 16-03-2006, Dave Crocker wrote:
>For the purposes of discussing accountability, email creation, 
>distribution, and consumption can be discussed in the terms used for 
>creation, distribution and consumption of books and the like.
>
>Therefore...
>
>
>Author:
>
>      Responsible for creating the message content.

As this discussion is about accountability, I suggest removing the 
"responsible" part from that line.  The author creates the message
content.

>Publisher:
>
>      Responsible for some degree of author and/or content 
> "approval" and for injecting the content into the Internet Mail
service.

As we move down the distribution chain, we find that the publisher 
may be identified as the responsible party as he/she can, to some 
degree, do content "approval" and identify the author.

Regards,
-sm