(re-adding ietf-smtp, it appeared to get bcc:ed so 'reply' didnt see it..) On Thu, 15 Nov 2007 14:20:48 EST, "David F. Skoll" said: > > Douglas Otis wrote: > > > To support this effort, the TBR Extension offers a low overhead > > means to defer a formal obligation to deliver, while also avoiding > > the exchange of undesired data. > > You still haven't explained this: What's in it for the sender? > Why would an e-mail sender be interested in deferring the receiving SMTP > server's obligation to deliver? As an e-mail sender, I want the e-mail > out of my hair as soon as possible! I don't want to have to hang on to it! > > And since ultimately the sender chooses whether or not to use TBR, you > have to explain... > > What's in it for the sender?
Even *more* important - what's in it for the sender *and* is a *disincentive* to nefarious-minded senders? Remember that spammers were among the *first* to deploy SPF (yes, I *know* that case is an abuse of the difference between what SPF *really* is and what most people *think* it is - but that's exactly the space that spammers live in: abusing the corner cases).
pgp9cQityxAz9.pgp
Description: PGP signature
