Re: [taugh.com-johnl] Re: Problems with SPF, solutions, and a

John R Levine wrote:

 >>As long as nobody else gave a better technical description of spam,
 >>which can be used to design technical counter measures, fighting
 >>sender forgery is still the best we can do.
 >>
 >>Your point of view that this has no relationship to spam and therefore
 >>has to be kept out is counterproductive, because there is no better
 >>way to do it yet. Following you would mean to not fight spam at all.
 >
 >
 > Once again, I hear "if we can't do something useful, we'll do something
 > useless instead."  No. we're not going to do that.
 >
 > There are other ASRG subgroups, but before we give up on this one, I'm
 > still open to suggestions about how LMAP might improve the actual spam
 > situation.  We don't have to define spam, all halfway plausible
 > definitions of spam define the same set of messages, so use any 
definition
 > of spam you want.
 >

Description of this subgroup:

"This subgroup will research approaches for authenticating and verifying
the SMTP session."

Since LMAP seems to be on its way to the IETF and there is an
LMAP-specific list at the IMC (www.imc.org/ietf-mxcomp/), I wanted to
ask the present company whether there is anything else useful OTHER than
LMAP for dealing with spam on SMTP level including authentication of the
SMTP session via other methods.

Yakov