--On 30 April 2010 15:33:51 -0600 "McDowell, Brett" <[email protected]> 
wrote:

>
> Talking about the status quo is to talk about how every ISP/MBP (btw, is
> it common practice to refer to a "mailbox provider" as a MBP?)

I tend to use "ESP" - Email Service Provider.

>
> So the status quo is ugly at best.

Agreed.

> Is there any will in this group (aside from my own) to evolve the
> standards to improve the status quo?

There is here! As far as I'm concerned email is badly broken already.

> <soapbox>
> Are the rest of you as concerned about the damage fraud messaging can
> have to a user's computer, identity, and all systems on the Internet
> accessible from that computer?  I know I don't have to say this, but...
> this isn't just about stopping annoying ads for viagra.  And it isn't
> just about financial institutions' monetary losses due to account
> takeover attacks enabled by phishing.  It's about the trustworthiness of
> the Internet and addressing the A#1 channel criminals use today to
> undermine the integrity of this amazing infrastructure all of us have
> enjoyed and many of *you* have created. </soapbox>



-- 
Ian Eiloart
IT Services, University of Sussex
01273-873148 x3148
For new support requests, see http://www.sussex.ac.uk/its/help/


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

Reply via email to