----- "Steve Atkins" <st...@wordtothewise.com> wrote: > > On May 26, 2009, at 5:15 PM, Franck Martin wrote: > > > It is also very heavy to have a FBL program this is why only a few > > ESPs offer feedback loops. I'm not sure it is something feasible for > > an organisation with a substantial number of users, like > > universities or small ISPs. > > > There are two difficult and/or expensive parts to offering a feedback > loop. They are the development costs of implementing some sort of UI > to capture feedback from the user (easier on webmail platforms, but > still not trivial) and the ongoing support costs of managing a > relationship with the senders who receive your feedback loop reports. > > Compared to those two I suspect that working out where to send a > report, and actually sending it, are much cheaper parts of the system. >
Well you define the 2 difficulties: 1) Development costs of implementing a UI 2) Relationship with the sender 1) if there is a standard, developpers can implement it in MUA and MTA so they are compatible. say MUA forward the complete email to a special mailbox on the MTA, and the MTA process it. Not sure if it is a valid/possible implementation, but that one that comes to mind. 2) if properly DKIM validated then there would be no need to define an out of band relationship with the sended. DKIM with a special protocol should be able to establish an inband relationship. Sender puts in the email that is wants to receive FBL, reciever evaluates if the sender request is valid and then process it. May be I should move this thread in ASRG? As dkim would provide validation/trust but not everything. Overall, the list-unsubscribe processing could not be done, because we could not trust any of the email headers until we had a trust mechanism with DKIM.
_______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
