Re: A new SMTP "3821" [Re: FTC stuff...........]

David Woodhouse <[email protected]> wrote:
> The nature of Alan and Hector's belief is such that it could only ever
> really be disproven, and never proven -- even it if _is_ in fact true.

  I'm not sure which of my beliefs you're talking about.

> The existence of a solution which does not require the world to be
> changed wholesale would disprove their theory that such change is
> required.

  Ah.  You're not talking about any of my beliefs.  Do not use my name
in the context of opinions I've never held.

> There is a lot of merit in all of CSV, SES, BATV, DK, IIM and the
> other solutions being discussed, and very little evidence that
> wholesale changes to existing practice are required, such as the
> changes which would be required by SPF or SenderID.

  CSV, SES, BATV, etc. require *some* changes to SMTP.  To address
Andrew's phrasing of the disagreement, I ask "How can you change
things without changing them?"

  The existence of CSV, SES, BATV, etc. is an admission that the SMTP
model did not previously contain the ideas put forth in those
proprosals.  Therefore, whether people admit it or not, the SMTP model
*is* open for changes, and *is* being changed.

  The question now becomes: What changes are to be permitted, and who
is to be permitted to propose those changes?

  One answer is this: It's not 1984.  No one is proposing that X.400
or any other protocol should replace SMTP.

  SMTP has won the email protocol wars.  It has significantly more
deployment than any other protocol, and is therefore the only one in
wide-spread use on the Internet.  SMTP has a multi-decade track record
of being the best, the most useful, the most inter-operable, and the
most wide-spread email protocol.  To first order, nothing else exists
but SMTP.

  Once that's understood, it would be idiotic to replace SMTP with one
of the proposals which was discussed and rejected 20 years ago.  It
would be idiotic to go through SMTP, making massive changes to all
aspects of the protocol.

  What DOES make sense is to understand WHY spam is a problem in SMTP.
This involves re-visiting the model, because the model of SMTP as
created 30 years ago manifestly did not include the concept that "spam
is a problem."  We need to understand what's going on in the design
and deployment of SMTP which allows spam to be a problem.

  In the short term, we can come up with endless band-aids.  We can
play "whack-a-mole" with spammers.  But unless we look at the system
as a whole, we won't have a solution for the whole system.

  The most frustrating part of this discussion is that no matter how
many times I repeat my position, I still get accused of wanting to
replace SMTP with something completely different.  I still get accused
of wanting to "change the world whole-sale".  I still get told "we
can't change the model", even as the people saying that are changing
the model.

  It's not 1984.  20 years have gone by.  SMTP won those wars and all
of the protocol wars which followed.  No one is arguing that we should
replace SMTP with X.400, or any other non-SMTP scheme.  I'm not one of
the X.400 people.

  Get over it.

  Alan DeKok.