You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to server-dev@james.apache.org by Vincenzo Gianferrari Pini <vi...@praxis.it> on 2004/05/19 17:37:39 UTC
"New Standard Could Reduce Spam"
I found this article today:
http://www.wired.com/news/print/0,1294,63513,00.html
This is something that I already developed last fall at the sender MTA side ("AddServerSignature" mailet), but stopped because I was counting on having a MUA check at the recipient side, and Outlook Express was not behaving correctly.
The threads were "From email address validation" and "[PROPOSAL] Release Plan" in this list.
This thing could become important in my country (Italy) also because the Italian Government is setting new rules regarding MTAs sending back signed receipt confirmations, in order to have email messages become legally valid etc. I'm going to dig a little around this.
Perhaps other countries are doing something similar now ...
Any thoughts?
Vincenzo
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: server-dev-unsubscribe@james.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: server-dev-help@james.apache.org
Re: "New Standard Could Reduce Spam"
Posted by "Richard O. Hammer" <RO...@EarthLink.net>.
It seems to me that spam is a big problem that many of us (or perhaps
most of us) have ideas about. I guess that most of the work now being
done on mail-handling programs (including James) is motivated by a
desire to limit spam.
In this vein, I have spent most of the last four years working toward
a kind of solution. But after four years the best I can say is that
I've learned a lot. Also I have a preliminary offering at
Mailscreen.net, but I grant this is so blunt and unrefined that it
will please almost no one.
My work on spam mixes in a heavy dose of my philosophy, which is
libertarian. I mistrust government and hope to see solutions
developed by private free market entrepreneurs.
On my to-do list, after I get caught up in the J2EE course which I'm
slogging through <http://www.javapassion.com/j2ee/index.html>, I want
to put up a blog focused on a search for market-oriented network
protocols. I posit that basic protocols at the IP level would contain
better provisions for assuring the mutual gain of participants if
those protocols had evolved in a marketplace between business traders,
rather than having been developed on contract for a monolithic power
(the US Department of Defense).
Rich Hammer
my present project: <http://mailscreen.net/>
resume: <http://trilug.org/~rh/resume.html>
a previous project now in hibernation: <http://freenation.org/>
Vincenzo Gianferrari Pini wrote:
> I found this article today:
>
> http://www.wired.com/news/print/0,1294,63513,00.html
>
> This is something that I already developed last fall at the sender MTA side ("AddServerSignature" mailet), but stopped because I was counting on having a MUA check at the recipient side, and Outlook Express was not behaving correctly.
>
> The threads were "From email address validation" and "[PROPOSAL] Release Plan" in this list.
>
> This thing could become important in my country (Italy) also because the Italian Government is setting new rules regarding MTAs sending back signed receipt confirmations, in order to have email messages become legally valid etc. I'm going to dig a little around this.
>
> Perhaps other countries are doing something similar now ...
>
> Any thoughts?
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: server-dev-unsubscribe@james.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: server-dev-help@james.apache.org
RE: "New Standard Could Reduce Spam"
Posted by "Noel J. Bergman" <no...@devtech.com>.
> The "Sender:" header is already ok, the problem is that Outlook Express
> seems to be not behaving well: Outlook Express [considers] as a tampering
> the fact of having the signature not coming from the sender, and ignores
> the "Sender:" header.
Let's check the latest version of Outlook Express, but I would not consider
that bug a reason not to include the functionality in James.
--- Noel
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: server-dev-unsubscribe@james.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: server-dev-help@james.apache.org
RE: "New Standard Could Reduce Spam"
Posted by Vincenzo Gianferrari Pini <vi...@praxis.it>.
> > This is something that I already developed last fall at the sender
> > MTA side ("AddServerSignature" mailet)
>
> You and I discussed it in September, at the latest. There should be a
> record of it in our archives, and I have a copy of the server-signed message
> you sent to me with the source code on September 16th.
>
No problem, I have all the source code working.
> > but stopped because I was counting on having a MUA check at the recipient
> > side, and Outlook Express was not behaving correctly.
>
> Do you recall what the issue was? I would expect to have to rewrite the
> Sender: header to match the key.
>
> The threads were "From email address validation" and "[PROPOSAL] Release
> Plan" in this list.
>
http://nagoya.apache.org/eyebrowse/ReadMsg?listName=james-dev@jakarta.apache.org&msgNo=9935
The "Sender:" header is already ok, the problem is that Outlook Express seems to be not behaving well: Outlook Express [considers] as a tampering the fact of having
the signature not coming from the sender, and ignores the "Sender:" header.
At that time I sent a "probe" (see http://nagoya.apache.org/eyebrowse/ReadMsg?listName=james-dev@jakarta.apache.org&msgNo=9937) to understand which MUA-s were well behaved, but only Serge and Matthew Pangaro did reply.
Now, should we ignore the Outlook Express behaviour and proceed? Or should we look for a signature being checked at the recipient server side? ... Just to see if there are thoughts about this.
> > Any thoughts?
>
> Time to get this into CVS so that it is an option. :-)
:-))
Vincenzo
>
> --- Noel
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: server-dev-unsubscribe@james.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: server-dev-help@james.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: server-dev-unsubscribe@james.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: server-dev-help@james.apache.org
RE: "New Standard Could Reduce Spam"
Posted by "Noel J. Bergman" <no...@devtech.com>.
> http://www.wired.com/news/print/0,1294,63513,00.html
> This is something that I already developed last fall at the sender
> MTA side ("AddServerSignature" mailet)
You and I discussed it in September, at the latest. There should be a
record of it in our archives, and I have a copy of the server-signed message
you sent to me with the source code on September 16th.
> but stopped because I was counting on having a MUA check at the recipient
> side, and Outlook Express was not behaving correctly.
Do you recall what the issue was? I would expect to have to rewrite the
Sender: header to match the key.
The threads were "From email address validation" and "[PROPOSAL] Release
Plan" in this list.
> Any thoughts?
Time to get this into CVS so that it is an option. :-)
--- Noel
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: server-dev-unsubscribe@james.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: server-dev-help@james.apache.org