On Fri, 4 Dec 2009, Charles Gregory wrote:
On Fri, 4 Dec 2009, John Hardin wrote:
Both would have to be done any time a new address was added to the mailing
list. And there would have to be some watchdog ensuring the MSP doesn't
relax the policy over time.
Uh-huh. For a -4 in my mail filter? They oughta! :)
It's a great idea. The problem is, how do you get mail service providers
to do this? What causes them loss of revenue if they _don't_ do it?
The fact that recipients change their SA score from negative to positive
(or better still, as argued here, the negative *default* is removed from
the distribution, so that millions of mail servers immediately
'downgrade' the mail's acceptability).
I had thought about that, but I suppose I didn't give the SA community
enough weight. Are there enough users of SA (including the customers of
those who repackage it commercially) who _maintain their systems_ (i.e.
keep up-to-date with new versions and run sa_update regularly) such that
the SA devs adjusting the scores centrally for whitelists would have an
aggregate effect across all those users similar to the Big Players doing
what I suggested?
If the majority of SA users install it and forget about it for five years
(including not running sa-update) then SA probably can't effectively be a
cattle prod with which to encourage proper behavior by MSPs.
--
John Hardin KA7OHZ http://www.impsec.org/~jhardin/
jhar...@impsec.org FALaholic #11174 pgpk -a jhar...@impsec.org
key: 0xB8732E79 -- 2D8C 34F4 6411 F507 136C AF76 D822 E6E6 B873 2E79
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
You do not examine legislation in the light of the benefits it
will convey if properly administered, but in the light of the
wrongs it would do and the harms it would cause if improperly
administered. -- Lyndon B. Johnson
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
11 days until Bill of Rights day
