J.D. Falk wrote:
Dave CROCKER wrote: [...]
Reading through the archives, it quickly becomes clear that the
arguments against accepting draft-hoffman-dac-vbr are actually arguments
against potential bad decisions on the part of mail system operators.
They're arguments against a big ISP like
Dave CROCKER wrote:
This is being sent long-after the deadline for comments about Vouch by
Reference (VBR), but several Discuss votes have been lodged and I am
hoping this note provides input useful for resolving them.
Looks like I'm even later to the party, but I see the discussion was still
At 06:23 04-02-2009, Alessandro Vesely wrote:
Also in more mature markets, not all of the existing companies and
universities running their own mail servers will be eager to spend
$5000/year on a vouch. In addition, the
The cost for email certification starts at around $1200 (950 Euros) a
If the technology is deployed by 100% of the community providing
professional email operations, both on the sending and the receiving
sides, as Dave expects, ...
I'm not Dave, but I cannot imagine where you got the idea that he
expects the community providing professional email operation to
SM wrote:
At 06:55 04-02-2009, Dave CROCKER wrote:
Macroeconomic analysis -- especially predictions about the directions
an economic process will develop towards -- is a poorly understood
topic of expertise, even among experts... as we are unfortunately
seeing demonstrated in the global
John Levine wrote:
If some group wanted to build a closed pay-to-play mail system, they
could do it with the tools they already have, using SMTP AUTH or
STARTTLS with a private signing cert or VPNs or whatever. The reason
they don't is that it makes no sense, and a tiny tweak like VBR isn't
The other thing I don't understand is why you minimize the expected VBR
effect. (If that's meant as an apotropaic stance, I have no objection.
Otherwise,) I wonder why we shouldn't push VBR as hard as we can, if it can
stop spam.
Could you point out where anyone, anywhere has claimed that VBR
Alessandro Vesely wrote:
John Levine wrote:
The other thing I don't understand is why you minimize the expected VBR
effect.
What I don't understand is your certitude about specific impact.
There is a considerable difference between having a large effect -- which is
what any proponent of
John R. Levine wrote:
The other thing I don't understand is why you minimize the expected
VBR effect. (If that's meant as an apotropaic stance, I have no
objection. Otherwise,) I wonder why we shouldn't push VBR as hard as
we can, if it can stop spam.
Could you point out where anyone,
At 02:47 06-02-2009, John Levine wrote:
I'm not Dave, but I cannot imagine where you got the idea that he
expects the community providing professional email operation to
deploy 100% of anything.
I'll quote the last part of the message from Dave (
SM wrote:
At 11:40 01-02-2009, Dave CROCKER wrote:
1. Macroeconomic effect from email filtering: Monopolistic
pressures
There wasn't any comments on the Last-Call about the implications to
individual or small companies, particularly ones in small emerging
market countries. It's
SM wrote:
What about senders from small emerging market countries having a very
hard time getting any widely accepted assurance group to vouch for them?
Also in more mature markets, not all of the existing companies and
universities running their own mail servers will be eager to spend
What about senders from small emerging market countries having a very
hard time getting any widely accepted assurance group to vouch for them?
Also in more mature markets, not all of the existing companies and
universities running their own mail servers will be eager to spend
$5000/year on a
At 11:40 01-02-2009, Dave CROCKER wrote:
Based on the Discusses that have been lodged (including those
resolved) concerns focus on:
1. Macroeconomic effect from email filtering: Monopolistic pressures
There wasn't any comments on the Last-Call about the implications to
individual or
The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider
the following document:
- 'Vouch By Reference'
draft-hoffman-dac-vbr-04.txt as a Proposed Standard
The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final comments on this action. Please send
15 matches
Mail list logo
