Re: Scope of SMTP Verify

Jeff Silverman wrote:
> Yakov Shafranovich wrote:
>>
>> So we are not talking about external third parties reputation systems, 
>> but your own internal white/black/gray lists?
> 
> Yakov,
> 
>    That's the direction I am leaning in favor of.   My thinking is that 
> the I have to trust whoever does the whitelist/blacklist.  It would be 
> nice if I could delegate it, but it seems to me that one persons SPAM is 
> another person's valuable communication.  So, for example, I am a 
> sysadmin, and I might decide that anything from the Nazis is spam.  But 
> one of my customers might be a Nazi.    Should my customer trust me to 
> run his SPAM filter for him?
> 
>    Now, perhaps you could have a hierarchy of whitelists and blacklists 
> and so some filtering at the UTA and some at the MTA.  This idea isn't 
> "cooked" enough, I'm sorry.  What I would like to see is the lists 
> maintained at the UTA and executed at the MTA, but that would require 
> the creation of a new way for UTAs and MTAs to communicate, and I just 
> don't see that happening.  Several people on this list have mentioned 
> backwards compatibility as a design goal and I hear them load and clear.
> 

The filtering subgroup is looking into ways for communicating 
information between the MUA and the MTA. Lotus Notes people from IBM 
claim that it is possible and they have ran some trials.

Yakov