From nobody Thu Apr 14 23:12:05 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: 89attendees@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: 89attendees@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9B69212DAED for <89attendees@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 14 Apr 2016 23:12:02 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 2.21 X-Spam-Level: ** X-Spam-Status: No, score=2.21 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_40=-0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_BL=0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_L3=2.2] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ty9yYNZMU89v for <89attendees@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 14 Apr 2016 23:11:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from p4079769.pubip.peer1.net (www.religjournal.com [216.157.16.24]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BB2F812DA7B for <89attendees@ietf.org>; Thu, 14 Apr 2016 23:11:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail 30504 invoked from network); 13 Apr 2016 09:15:18 -0400 Received: from unknown (HELO hwhz.net) (175.193.207.245) by www.religjournal.com with ESMTPSA (DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 encrypted, authenticated); 13 Apr 2016 09:15:17 -0400 From: To: "89attendees" <89attendees@ietf.org>, "Alexandru Petrescu" , "Antoin Verschuren" , "Arran Cudbard-Bell" , "Dave Cottlehuber" Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2016 16:15:12 +0300 Message-ID: <0000a636757e$4f166f8d$8b680798$@queuefull.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0001_40171C7D.0318C878" X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 15.0 Thread-Index: AdGNd2H5v6R3+P5gFANz+J/AHEaJLA== Content-Language: en-us Archived-At: Subject: [89attendees] Fw: new important message X-BeenThere: 89attendees@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: "Mailing list of IETF 89 attendees that have opted in to the list." <89attendees.ietf.org> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2016 06:12:02 -0000 This is a multipart message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0001_40171C7D.0318C878 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hello! New message, please read bensons@queuefull.net ------=_NextPart_000_0001_40171C7D.0318C878 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<= span lang=3DEN-US>Hello!

 

New message, please read http://cateringlunaderubi.com/delig= ht.php

 

= bensons@queuefull.net

------=_NextPart_000_0001_40171C7D.0318C878-- From nobody Fri Apr 15 11:53:08 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: 89attendees@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: 89attendees@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4496412DDC4 for <89attendees@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 15 Apr 2016 11:53:04 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.901 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id bwBSxjd_06fC for <89attendees@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 15 Apr 2016 11:53:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from miucha.iecc.com (abusenet-1-pt.tunnel.tserv4.nyc4.ipv6.he.net [IPv6:2001:470:1f06:1126::2]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0455512DD57 for <89attendees@ietf.org>; Fri, 15 Apr 2016 11:53:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail 10058 invoked from network); 15 Apr 2016 18:53:00 -0000 Received: from unknown (64.57.183.18) by mail1.iecc.com with QMQP; 15 Apr 2016 18:53:00 -0000 Date: 15 Apr 2016 18:52:38 -0000 Message-ID: <20160415185238.6233.qmail@ary.lan> From: ietf@johnlevine.com To: 89attendees@ietf.org In-Reply-To: Organization: X-Headerized: yes Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-transfer-encoding: 8bit Archived-At: Cc: ietf@ietf.org Subject: Re: [89attendees] spam on old lists - was Fw: new important message X-BeenThere: 89attendees@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: "Mailing list of IETF 89 attendees that have opted in to the list." <89attendees.ietf.org> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2016 18:53:04 -0000 >Having fought with DNSBL providers, I think the BLACK part of the name is >appropriate ... as in BLACK HOLE re. any hope of rational resolution. There are hundreds of DNSBL providers, most of whom are incompentent, but nobody uses their lists so it doesn't matter. There are a few that are competent and have very low error rates. They, not surprisingly, are the ones everyone uses. When I say everyone, I mean it -- every mail system of any size uses them as part of their spam filtering because they have to. They're awful but less awful than the alternatives. In this particular case, filtering by From: address on mailing lists still works well enough, particularly here where the participants tend to be technically sophisticated and so are somewhat less likely to get their accounts p3ned than average users. So I agree that we might as well turn off useless old meeting lists, but I don't see any need to twiddle things beyond that. R's, John PS: >> We _could_ in principle work up protocols to replace zero-maintenance >> blacklists as "the solution" to spam. I tried, the last time the topic >> was hot; but totally failed to get anything that wasn't trivial to bypass. I don't think that's a failure of imagination, it's in the nature of systems with malicious participants. It's not unrelated to the observation that you wouldn't want to join a club that would have you as a member. From nobody Fri Apr 15 11:56:05 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: 89attendees@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: 89attendees@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A4CED12D571; Fri, 15 Apr 2016 11:56:01 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.2 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Ezd9-0cJ919v; Fri, 15 Apr 2016 11:55:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.lacnic.net.uy (hermes.lacnic.net.uy [IPv6:2001:13c7:7001:4000::8]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0F3AE12D7E1; Fri, 15 Apr 2016 11:55:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.lacnic.net.uy (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.lacnic.net.uy (Postfix) with ESMTP id CACAD16B40F5D; Fri, 15 Apr 2016 15:47:55 -0300 (UYT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at lacnic.net.uy Received: from mail.lacnic.net.uy ([127.0.0.1]) by hermes.lacnic.net.uy (mail.lacnic.net.uy [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id l1UwrNSkk5AU; Fri, 15 Apr 2016 15:47:54 -0300 (UYT) Received: from [IPv6:2001:13c7:7001:2128:5006:52b0:f2fc:e8fc] (unknown [IPv6:2001:13c7:7001:2128:5006:52b0:f2fc:e8fc]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.lacnic.net.uy (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id D90B616B400E2; Fri, 15 Apr 2016 15:47:54 -0300 (UYT) To: ietf@johnlevine.com, 89attendees@ietf.org References: <20160415185238.6233.qmail@ary.lan> From: "Carlos M. Martinez" Message-ID: <57113939.80102@lacnic.net> Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2016 15:55:53 -0300 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.11; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.7.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20160415185238.6233.qmail@ary.lan> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Archived-At: Cc: ietf@ietf.org Subject: Re: [89attendees] spam on old lists - was Fw: new important message X-BeenThere: 89attendees@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: "Mailing list of IETF 89 attendees that have opted in to the list." <89attendees.ietf.org> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2016 18:56:01 -0000 Arenīt old XXattendees MLs suspended/default moderated ? i would have thought so. At least it's what we do with old lacnicXX-attendees -Carlos On 4/15/16 3:52 PM, ietf@johnlevine.com wrote: >> Having fought with DNSBL providers, I think the BLACK part of the name is >> appropriate ... as in BLACK HOLE re. any hope of rational resolution. > There are hundreds of DNSBL providers, most of whom are incompentent, > but nobody uses their lists so it doesn't matter. There are a few > that are competent and have very low error rates. They, not > surprisingly, are the ones everyone uses. When I say everyone, I mean > it -- every mail system of any size uses them as part of their spam > filtering because they have to. They're awful but less awful than the > alternatives. > > In this particular case, filtering by From: address on mailing lists > still works well enough, particularly here where the participants tend > to be technically sophisticated and so are somewhat less likely to get > their accounts p3ned than average users. So I agree that we might as > well turn off useless old meeting lists, but I don't see any need to > twiddle things beyond that. > > R's, > John > > PS: > >>> We _could_ in principle work up protocols to replace zero-maintenance >>> blacklists as "the solution" to spam. I tried, the last time the topic >>> was hot; but totally failed to get anything that wasn't trivial to bypass. > I don't think that's a failure of imagination, it's in the nature of > systems with malicious participants. It's not unrelated to the > observation that you wouldn't want to join a club that would have you > as a member. > > _______________________________________________ > 89attendees mailing list > 89attendees@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/89attendees From nobody Fri Apr 15 15:23:32 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: 89attendees@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: 89attendees@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 70EA612E0DB; Fri, 15 Apr 2016 15:23:28 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.699 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.699 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id KrTYIuFBSoeF; Fri, 15 Apr 2016 15:23:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-ob0-x236.google.com (mail-ob0-x236.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c01::236]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CD55B12E123; Fri, 15 Apr 2016 15:23:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-ob0-x236.google.com with SMTP id bg3so71550202obb.1; Fri, 15 Apr 2016 15:23:26 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=ibnTvl10asQ94XwXFIREg4h8y0xdeFsNiFEjCM55oys=; b=MRqp2YPs0oBT2Spypedq0/cBCCBxLzitiGy1Z8RlzBwnDYKdE3jTx9LvsY5qQDo2/8 7xoLr7gK/MCdE0JzYa1zbeaMM38K1UJzUkzMFPGPkAPat0isxM1Sk3EA76QbtYyQ8dNb JuE7/8HHJD/fF2XVFDmzcqb+dBO7iFRsYPedeo/8SfJ+wNNnlrR+mSZIw6AF8AL1h2u7 eZrPQDQo6QjAXdYON73kCcXyAuq/RD85HPZ6JzdRLoDxniFwna84YTgetHF+v3r+bBjm Z4h+iMNlobi44UcXx1tpobndKEDqHxD1qgstdwFiQOjfZ22SVwtKtJf5hBVsZrmzz7/Z PdcQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=ibnTvl10asQ94XwXFIREg4h8y0xdeFsNiFEjCM55oys=; b=iAF+hXsjMtqFZS90qTR1qDAgB1I3SqNKAHElt0V7h4xijqHuo/N1NbxZt5YsyoL7Dl ZjFEcgMp84yv1hPVal08wXuJQqgUCcDl7p2uTFjrdugjKjyNjc28iisfq3XdxKo1Ggod 8gA70m34BVzBz2cI2TWlfjt3aPfvEb4vuwGu9UjSbMrT2qXk86bvTa7uQ1jt75+hl4CZ dcDAMTk1BBbOm/kOGPMRpwQE65CZ4TuC4u4o6RuWdw6CVym1EMgppVixqgXLrSLQ65/f lUsLJW8ZMD5JrTG02S8qydVWhcWnGyecZxds+tcnt+cBkORJa4CwV52Rt34hsD+5spCS wuLQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AOPr4FWnrPejPXS9gniO5n0magrkYssWfml+kDgkLS7avYQYfumAcORuGAW6BFtVZCw9anwiSrR4m8GGikGbpg== X-Received: by 10.182.98.167 with SMTP id ej7mr12429275obb.46.1460759006197; Fri, 15 Apr 2016 15:23:26 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.182.114.136 with HTTP; Fri, 15 Apr 2016 15:22:46 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20160415185238.6233.qmail@ary.lan> References: <20160415185238.6233.qmail@ary.lan> From: Dick Franks Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2016 23:22:46 +0100 Message-ID: To: ietf@johnlevine.com Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7b2e41ecaac38e05308d7517 Archived-At: Cc: IETF Discussion , 89attendees@ietf.org Subject: Re: [89attendees] spam on old lists - was Fw: new important message X-BeenThere: 89attendees@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: "Mailing list of IETF 89 attendees that have opted in to the list." <89attendees.ietf.org> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2016 22:23:28 -0000 --047d7b2e41ecaac38e05308d7517 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 On 15 April 2016 at 19:52, wrote: [snip] > In this particular case, filtering by From: address on mailing lists > still works well enough, particularly here where the participants tend > to be technically sophisticated and so are somewhat less likely to get > their accounts p3ned than average users. So I agree that we might as > well turn off useless old meeting lists, but I don't see any need to > twiddle things beyond that. > So what needs to be done to make it happen? --047d7b2e41ecaac38e05308d7517 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On 15 April 2016 at 19:52, <ietf@johnlev= ine.com> wrote:
[snip]
In this particular case, filtering by From: address on mailing lists
still works well enough, particularly here where the participants tend
to be technically sophisticated and so are somewhat less likely to get
their accounts p3ned than average users.=C2=A0 So I agree that we might as<= br> well turn off useless old meeting lists, but I don't see any need to twiddle things beyond that.

So what nee= ds to be done to make it happen?


=C2=A0
--047d7b2e41ecaac38e05308d7517--